-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 166
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: add functions for arithmetic, rounding, logarithmic, and string transformations #245
Conversation
@gforsyth Is there a convention to follow for the name/description? Some files have both in double quotes, some only have one, some neither. Seems like it's mismatched. |
I went with double-quotes for a single line description but no quotes for a multiline string. But that's arbitrary |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In addition, I think you forgot to implement this comment: #230 (comment). It seems to me like we had reached consensus about that? sqrt and logarithms need domain error handling, all floating point operations need rounding mode, and SILENT/SATURATE/ERROR makes no sense for functions that return floats.
9114060
to
e7696c8
Compare
… transformations feat: sqrt returns in fp64 only fix: ceil and floor on floating point only feat: fixedchar in string transformations fix: overflow on floating point negation fix: is_nan with only floating points
deferring to more focused PR
engines should handle upromotions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The logarithms still lack domain error handling (undefined for <= 0). LGTM now otherwise.
Thanks for the review, @jvanstraten -- added in domain error handling, should be good now |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. Thanks @gforsyth for working through the feedback!
Picking up on @sanjibansg 's work in #230 -- I've fixed up what I believe were the remaining comments and I've removed the
round
operation so that can be handled and discussed separately (although there seems to be a reasonable consensus around #230 (comment)