On 2/15/12 10:29 AM, John Lapeyre wrote:
>>
>> I don't think this is the right thing to do. Why? Because:
>>
>> erf(%i),numer;
>>
>> returns 1.650425758797543 %i.
>>
>> How did I know? I cheated and looked at the code for
>> float-numerical-eval-p which has a check for $numer.
>
>> Perhaps %erf needs a 'subc property added to its property list?
>
> I don't understand how that works, except that it has something
> to to with creating a subcontext.
My mistake. I was wondering how float(sin(%i)) will return a numerical
result when float(erf(%i)) does not. We're missing something, but I
don't know what that is right now.
> It seems there should be a way of having float(erf(%i)) work that is
> independent of how erf simplifies to erfi.
Agreed. There is still the separate and long-standing issue of how
float and numer behave differently in rather unexpected ways.
Ray