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

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2024 23:28:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Done: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log

Message #37 received at 75105 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

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: Re: 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?
This bug report was last modified 25 days ago.

Previous Next

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