/prog/ - Is 0.0 float or integer

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 8:13

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 18:55

P#
GNU Prolog
lol toy prologs

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 18:58

So >>12-san, what is an example of a "real" prolog?

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 19:01

Lua 5.1.4  Copyright (C) 1994-2008 Lua.org, PUC-Rio

print(type(0.0))

number

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 19:05

>>13
Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 Prolog.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 19:11

>>13
SWI-Prolog

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 6:21

>>13
ANUS-Prolog

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 6:24



>>> type(0.0)

<type 'float'>

>>>

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 7:09

>>18
Ah, the C++ repl.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 7:22

>>19
it's python

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 11:26

in c++ it's double. 0.0f is float.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 11:57

>>21
Same for Java.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 15:16

alert(typeof 0.0); // number

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 15:18

* (type-of 0.0) SINGLE-FLOAT

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 15:42



 ruby -e 'puts (0.0).class'

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 15:43

oops forgot output



ruby -e 'puts (0.0).class'

Float

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 15:46

> (number? 0.0)

#t

(integer? 0.0)

#t

(exact? 0.0)

#f

All hail the might of abstraction safe languages!

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 1:40



% php -r 'echo gettype(0.0), "\n";'

double

%

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 2:00

Prelude> :t 0.0

0.0 :: (Fractional t) => t

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 2:04

>>29
You're too late¹.

------
¹: >>6

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 3:18

null

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 6:10

[code
EnterpriseFloatingPointNumberInstance
[/code]

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 6:11



EnterpriseFloatingPointNumberInstance

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 6:33

I want you to consider the following paradox:

Prelude> 1.0 == 0.99999999999999999

True

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 7:00

I want you to consider the following paradox:

Prelude> 10 == 0xA

True

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 8:29

>>35
THE UNIVERSE IS IN DANGER: PART ONE

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 10:24

>>> 010.5 - 010

2.5

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 10:29

>>37

>>> 010.5 - (010 + .5)

2.0

now that's some quality language design right there.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 10:37

PY3000 fixes some of it:

>>> 010.5 - 010

  File "<stdin>", line 1

    010.5 - 010

              ^

SyntaxError: invalid token

>>> 010.5 - 0o10

2.5

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 10:38

>>38
You're saying octal shouldn't be recognised?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 11:13

>>38
The answer is obviously .125.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 11:25

>>40
i'm saying either it shouldn't recognize 010.5, or it should interpret both numbers as octal.
Forced Inconsistency Of Code.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 11:57

>>42
Well, yeah, it is FIOC, but still. Numbers with a decimal point are going to be, uh, decimal, right?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 12:01

>>43
Not really, you can have a “decimal point” in any base.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 12:16

>>44
Why is it that 0xDEAD.BEEF is illegal?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 13:28

>>45
0xDEAD.0xBEEF

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 15:18

>>37

$ perl -le'print(010.5 - 010)'

77

There's more than one way™

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 15:45

>>44
"decimal point"
You're looking for "radix point."

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 16:35

>>48
s/>>44/>>43/ surely
I uniquoted “decimal point” for a reason. Perhaps if I'd used sic, you'd have understood.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 16:46

>>47
What in the fuck?!

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 16:56

>>47
I am thoroughly confused. Care to explain what happened here?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 16:57

>>51
Perl.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 16:58

>>52
But why did it do that!?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 17:00

>>53
Because Leisure Suit Larry Wall is a religious person and therefore appreciates some mystery in his language.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 17:01

>>50,51
Well, as >>42 suggested, it doesn't recognize 010.5. But being Perl, there are no syntax errors, only fallback interpretations. So instead it gets read as 010 . 5 - 010, which means 8 5 concat 8 -. 85 - 8 = 77.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 17:53

>>55
That is hideously disgusting. I'm glad I have no experience with that awful language.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 18:01

>>54
ken sent me

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-01 1:17

>>56
Because you often try to use a radix point with octal literals?

The cute thing about this example is that it will never happen by accident.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-01 5:08

>>55
>it gets read as 010 . 5 - 010, which means 8 5 concat 8 -. 85 - 8 = 77.
GENISU

Name: 2010-10-26 14:17

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 11:50

<

Newer Posts

Is 0.0 float or integer

1 Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 8:13

12 Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 18:55

13 Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 18:58

14 Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 19:01

15 Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 19:05

16 Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 19:11

17 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 6:21

18 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 6:24

19 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 7:09

20 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 7:22

21 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 11:26

22 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 11:57

23 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 15:16

24 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 15:18

25 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 15:42

26 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 15:43

27 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-30 15:46

28 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 1:40

29 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 2:00

30 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 2:04

31 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 3:18

32 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 6:10

33 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 6:11

34 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 6:33

35 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 7:00

36 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 8:29

37 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 10:24

38 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 10:29

39 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 10:37

40 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 10:38

41 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 11:13

42 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 11:25

43 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 11:57

44 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 12:01

45 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 12:16

46 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 13:28

47 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 15:18

48 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 15:45

49 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 16:35

50 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 16:46

51 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 16:56

52 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 16:57

53 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 16:58

54 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 17:00

55 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 17:01

56 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 17:53

57 Name: Anonymous 2010-05-31 18:01

58 Name: Anonymous 2010-06-01 1:17

59 Name: Anonymous 2010-06-01 5:08

60 Name: ​​​​​​​​​​ 2010-10-26 14:17

62 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 11:50