On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 08:24:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 at 20:15:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2016 3:33 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
But would it really have an effect if I wrote a DIP on
getting predictable
floating point behaviour? If there is a chance that it would,
then I might
consider it :-).
I encourage you to consider it.
Ok, I am considering it. ;-)
I also don't think there is a problem in having DIPs that are
in limbo. I prefer that over rejection, as most ideas often
have something to them for others to build upon.
So it is better to just have some fields that lists how one DIP
is related to another DIP (e.g. "replaced by", "related to",
"depends on" etc).
Outright rejection probably just discourage people from
contributing similar DIPs that would be good for the language.
Better with constructive qualitative comments which point out
unresolved issues, which can lead to new improved DIPs.
Consider that there are many optimizations that rely on fp not
being predictable. For instance, fabs(x) can be transformed into
x | 0x80000000 if you don't care about NaN's sign (yes, NaN are
signed).
