Message359812
Mark:
> Making the second argument optional sounds reasonable to me, but doesn't necessarily have to happen in the existing PR; we can always add that option later.
Do you mean nextafter(x, y=inf, /): toward positive infinity by default? I prefer to keep the second parameter mandatory, to make the direction more explicit. As Tim showed, it's easy to implement nextUp() on top of
nextafter().
> "nextafter" is fine with me.
Good :-) It seems like everybody agrees on nextafter().
> it would be good to make sure that we have tests for the behaviour matching the spec, particularly with respect to signed zeros: the first clause here implies nextafter(0.0, -0.0) is -0.0, while nextafter(-0.0, 0.0) is 0.0.
I had a test for math.nextafter(+0.0, -0.0). I added a test for math.nextafter(-0.0, +0.0).
> I'd also recommend adding tests for nextafter(smallest_normal, 0.0), nextafter(largest_normal, inf), nextafter(inf, 0),
Done.
> and the like.
Feel free to suggest more tests on the PR.
> The C standard isn't 100% clear on what nextafter(-0.0, inf) should be
I added a test for it, for positive and negative zeros.
> But IEEE 754 is explicit that nextUp(±0) is the smallest positive subnormal
That's what I get. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-01-11 17:28:40 | vstinner | set | recipients:
+ vstinner, lemburg, tim.peters, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, stutzbach, steven.daprano |
2020-01-11 17:28:40 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1578763720.24.0.746643464734.issue39288@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-01-11 17:28:40 | vstinner | link | issue39288 messages |
2020-01-11 17:28:39 | vstinner | create | |
|