On 05/17/2016 02:13 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09.05.2016 22:20, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/9/2016 12:39 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Educating programmers who've never studied how to write correct FP
code is too
complex of a task to implement via compiler warnings. The warnings
should be
limited to cases that are either obviously wrong, or where the warning
is likely
to be a net positive even for FP experts.
I've seen a lot of proposals which try to hide the reality of how FP
works. The cure is worse than the disease. The same goes for hiding
signed/unsigned, and the autodecode mistake of pretending that code
units aren't there.
I feel the same way about automated enhancement of precision for
intermediate computations behind the back of the programmer. In the best
case, you are pretending that the algorithm has better numerical
properties than it actually has, in the worst case you are destroying
the accuracy of the result.
That's an interesting assessment, thanks. -- Andrei
