Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives Andrew Wilcox (15 Nov 2005 00:16 UTC)
Re: Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (15 Nov 2005 01:04 UTC)
Re: Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives John.Cowan (15 Nov 2005 02:56 UTC)
Re: Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives John.Cowan (15 Nov 2005 03:44 UTC)

Re: Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk 15 Nov 2005 01:04 UTC

Andrew Wilcox <xxxxxx@andrewwilcox.name> writes:

> To take an example of [Egner et al. 2004], (< x y) in this proposal
> returns an *inexact* boolean, if either X or Y is inexact.

A boolean is almost always used to choose control flow. Since you
can't make control flow inexact, inexactness is not really contagious.
It can't be. Inexact booleans don't add any real value.

[More comments later.]

--
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       xxxxxx@knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/