On Wednesday, 23 July 2014 at 07:49:28 UTC, Don wrote:
I think it's a complete fantasy to think you can write generic
code that will work for both floats and ints. The algorithms
are completely different.
Not really a valid line of reasoning.
Bool < uints < ints < fixed point < floats < interval arithmetic
You can make the same argument about all these types. Moreover,
any float can be accurately represented as a rational number.
(f + 1) and (i + 1) have totally different semantics.
Not if you view floats as a single sample on a real interval. You
can compute this interval on CT and sample a float on it.
If you are speaking of iterative methods, sure, it might not
converge. But that us not unique for floats, happens with ints vs
uints too.
Well, it's not a small number of differences. Almost every
operation is different. Maybe all of them. I can't actually
think of a single operation where the semantics are the same
for integers and floating point.
Double can emulate 32 bit ints. Fixed point is essentially
subnormal floats with limited exponent. Fixed point IS integer
math. All int types are fixed point. If you find a clean way to
support transaparent use of fixed point, you probably also
resolve the issues with floats.
I think that unfortunately, it's a quest that is doomed to
fail. Producing generic code that works for both floats and
ints is a fool's errand.
Of course not. Not if the semantic analysis deals with precision
and value ranges. Not trivial, but not impossible either.
