|Charles Greathouse on Fri, 11 May 2012 16:10:01 +0200|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
> Alternatively, we could have e_INEQUALITY with an extra argument for the sign of > the inequality (1 for >, -1 for <) I think this would be good. Perhaps also 0 for â, for things like zeta(1). Charles Greathouse Analyst/Programmer Case Western Reserve University On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 02:20:29PM -0400, Charles Greathouse wrote: >> I'm not sure if the explosion of error types would be useful. ÂMaybe >> it would be best to stick to just one or two (e_INEQUALITY, e_BADINPUT >> by whatever name). > > Why not ? I would say, most of the time, you only want to catch very specific > 'expected' errors, and not the others because this would hide bugs in your code. > > Alternatively, we could have e_INEQUALITY with an extra argument for the sign of > the inequality (1 for >, -1 for <) > > Cheers, > Bill.