yes On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Ian Davis <m...@iandavis.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, at 05:19 PM, Michael Jones wrote: > > There is part of the topic that has always been slightly beyond my grasp. > (Maybe I do understand...but just lack absolute certainty.) Maybe others > know the answer... > > In a template system (which is what I prefer but that's not the point of > this email) we have the notion of the TYPE(s) being a formal argument. We > presume that the code will compile or fail based on the suitability of the > instantiated type. That is, a templated Min would fail on the comparison > "<" if the TYPE was "Map[something]something." Call that a lexical fail. > > My question is, what about a semantic fail. Say, "<" for floating point. > In the sort package the Less function does !Less(a,b)&&!Less(b,a) to figure > out Equal(a,b). That works for ints and strings, but when I templated sort > I found that it failed in tests with float32 and float64 because of NaN > values, which are !Less(a,b)&&!Less(b,a) yet !Equal(a,b). I had to make two > templates, one for floating point values and one for integral/string values. > > > Is this because sort.Less requires total ordering and, because of NaN, < > for floats only offers partial ordering? > > Ian > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Michael T. Jones michael.jo...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
