Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from October 2001
Re: NaN semantics
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
RaFaL Pocztarski
Date:
October 10, 2001 09:37
Subject:
Re: NaN semantics
Message ID:
3BC47974.B1C962F7@rfl.pl
Trond Michelsen wrote:
> >> BTW, I was thinking once that numeral literals like 4k or 10G
> >> (meaning 4*2**10, 10*2**30) would be very nice. What do you think?
> > I think the meaning of the suffices are sufficiently vague as to make me
> > uncomfortable supporting them. Is 1K 1024 or 1000? I can make a good case
> > for both, and that's never a good sign.
>
> There's always the possibility of supporting SI's binary prefixes ;)
I thought about it but it wouldn't work with imaginary numbers. :)
- RaFaL Pocztarski, admin@rfl.pl
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next