# New Ticket Created by Zefram
# Please include the string: [perl #130155]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=130155 >
> 2e0**-1019
1.78005908680576e-307
> 2e0**-1020
8.90029543402881e-308
> 2.0**-1019
1.7800590868
# New Ticket Created by Zefram
# Please include the string: [perl #130154]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=130154 >
> 2e0**-1019
1.78005908680576e-307
> 2e0**-1020
8.90029543402881e-308
> 1 / (2**1019)
1.7800590
# New Ticket Created by Zefram
# Please include the string: [perl #130153]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=130153 >
> 2e0**-1019
1.78005908680576e-307
> 2e0**-1020
8.90029543402881e-308
> 2**-1019
1.780059086805
Brandon Allbery wrote:
>A status flag is not attached to a value, it is a processor status flag.
>Why would you say I claimed that?
I didn't say that you claimed that, and indeed you hadn't. But the
implication of you saying that I had erred in my description of floating
point zeroes, with your m
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Zefram wrote:
> There is no flag attached to a zero
A status flag is not attached to a value, it is a processor status flag.
Why would you say I claimed that?
--
brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates
allber...@gmail.com
Brandon Allbery wrote:
>iirc underflow doesn't work quite the way either you or Darren said; it's
>not just the signed zero, it's also a status flag indicating that that
>signed zero reflects an underflow condition.
There is no flag attached to a zero to indicate that it came
from underflow. Ther
And my own misspeaking was a slight mis-description of the relevance of
signed zero in the ticket, which I corrected to Zoffix in IRC.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Brandon Allbery
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Zefram wrote:
>
>> In which aspect did I misspeak?
>
>
> iirc under
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Zefram wrote:
> In which aspect did I misspeak?
iirc underflow doesn't work quite the way either you or Darren said; it's
not just the signed zero, it's also a status flag indicating that that
signed zero reflects an underflow condition. What it is not is a sepa
Brandon Allbery via RT wrote:
>Zefrem and I both misspoke on this,
In which aspect did I misspeak?
-zefram
Will Coleda via RT wrote:
>as of b5aa3c5, these both output 287369 now.
For clarity, that's still bad rounding, then.
-zefram
Zefrem and I both misspoke on this, but I clarified on IRC and this was
iirc already fixed as a result.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Darren Duncan
wrote:
> And here I thought IEEE floats had distinct values to represent overflows
> and underflows that were distinct from both the zeros and t
And here I thought IEEE floats had distinct values to represent overflows and
underflows that were distinct from both the zeros and the infinities. -- Darren
Duncan
On 2016-11-22 8:19 PM, Zefram wrote:
Zoffix Znet via RT wrote:
The reason we have a negative floating point zero at all is more
Zoffix Znet via RT wrote:
>The reason we have a negative floating point zero at all is more due to
>underlying implementations at whose level such zeros are used to signal
>various exceptions.
No, that's not what negative zero is about in floating point. (Maybe
you're thinking of ones-complement
Thanks.
Fixed in
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/17604e3e4643442ba84ab5670ad7438ef04a5c31
Test unfuddged in
https://github.com/perl6/roast/commit/2836648481af39f5bc1474b056133b545372a02c
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:22:04 -0800, barto...@gmx.de wrote:
> The following code dies with StringIn
# New Ticket Created by Zoffix Znet
# Please include the string: [perl #130151]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=130151 >
m: class C { method foo (--> ::?CLASS:D) { self } }; say .foo given C
rakudo-moar 080630:
15 matches
Mail list logo
