Group Email Manager

login signup
arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (21 Oct 2005 14:53 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues John.Cowan (21 Oct 2005 15:59 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues bear (21 Oct 2005 16:39 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues John.Cowan (22 Oct 2005 02:03 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 20:24 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 20:30 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 22:25 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 22:30 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: +nan.0 problems bear (24 Oct 2005 06:04 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (21 Oct 2005 17:15 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (21 Oct 2005 20:24 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (21 Oct 2005 20:32 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (22 Oct 2005 00:26 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (22 Oct 2005 00:45 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (22 Oct 2005 01:17 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (22 Oct 2005 01:22 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: arithmetic issues Bradley Lucier (23 Oct 2005 19:46 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (23 Oct 2005 20:10 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (23 Oct 2005 19:54 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Jens Axel Søgaard (23 Oct 2005 20:01 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (23 Oct 2005 20:50 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 21:12 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 22:31 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 22:33 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 22:50 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 22:57 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 00:53 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 01:05 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 01:45 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:00 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 02:08 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:14 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 02:27 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:45 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 02:13 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:22 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 03:19 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 02:01 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (24 Oct 2005 02:27 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 03:14 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues John.Cowan (24 Oct 2005 05:37 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Per Bothner (24 Oct 2005 07:05 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 07:58 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 08:05 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 08:25 UTC)
reading NaNs Aubrey Jaffer (24 Oct 2005 15:35 UTC)
Re: reading NaNs Per Bothner (24 Oct 2005 17:35 UTC)
Re: reading NaNs bear (24 Oct 2005 19:23 UTC)
Re: reading NaNs Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 18:17 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues bear (24 Oct 2005 06:13 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 06:27 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 07:49 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues bear (24 Oct 2005 16:41 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 07:49 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG 23 Oct 2005 22:57 UTC 
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <xxxxxx@knm.org.pl> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> writes:
>
>> Aubrey has a point here.  The tradition to which you refer has not
>> historically included so-called "error objects".
>
> There is no reason to treat them specially in this regard.

Please keep track of the discussion.

It is an explanation of why your appeal to tradition is ill-founded;
the tradition actually points the opposite way.

What gives here?  Was the traditional practice just fine when you
thought it supported you, and when it doesn't it should simply be
ignored as giving "no reason"?

Thomas