[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: fateman@mike.berkeley.edu, Common-Lisp@sail.stanford.edu, DCP@quabbin.scrc.symbolics.com, Greenwald@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com, Moon@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com, gls@think.com*Subject*: Re: Numerical Comparison: "required coercions"*From*: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>*Date*: Thu, 26 Mar 87 15:08 EST*Cc*: Numerics@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com, gls@think.com*In-reply-to*: <8703261954.AA05911@mike>

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 87 11:54:28 PST From: fateman@mike.berkeley.edu (Richard Fateman) I think that comparing more than 2 operands could simply be forbidden since the semantics is unclear and the utility is doubtful. The convenience is considerable when working with integers in such expressions as (<= 0 J N) (< -1 J K (+ N 1)) Admittedly this does not allow similarly concise expression of such common mathematical idioms as 0 <= j < n where the comparisons differ as to whether equality is to be included. I agree that using more than two arguments with floating-point numbers should perhaps be avoided as a matter of style. --Guy

**References**:**Re: Numerical Comparison: "required coercions"***From:*fateman@mike.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Fateman)

- Prev by Date:
**Numerical Comparison: "required coercions"** - Next by Date:
**Re: Numerical Comparison: "required coercions"** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Numerical Comparison: "required coercions"** - Next by thread:
**Re: Numerical Comparison: "required coercions"** - Index(es):