GNU bug report logs - #75105
(cl-random -1.0e+INF)

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, 75105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mattiasengdegard <at> gmail.com, pipcet <at> protonmail.com, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: bug#75105: (cl-random -1.0e+INF)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:43:32 +0200

> Cc: 75105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, mattiasengdegard <at> gmail.com
> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 22:17:34 +0000
> 
> Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > 16 feb. 2025 kl. 01.50 skrev Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>:
> >
> >> (cl-random 0.0) returns 0.0, but one could argue it should throw
> >
> > It definitely should throw, but perhaps it's not worth the incompatibility? Not sure, because existing code that passes 0.0 is likely buggy anyway.
> > Or we could say that it's just an ad-hoc extension, by vague analogy of (car nil) = nil.

IMO, signaling an error is only justified if the call (cl-random 0.0)
cannot keep the contract of the function according to its doc string.
I don't think the value 0.0 it returns breaks the contract.

> FWIW, I'd lean towards fixing it, in the hope that very few packages out
> there will rely on this wrong behavior.

Fix it how?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.