handling T.min the right way

[Pragma]

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> A while ago, C++ did the mistake of defining 
> std::numeric_limits<T>::min() with a different semantics for 
> floating-point types than for integral types. That hurt generic numeric 
> code a lot.
> 
> D has taken over the same mistake: T.min means the smallest value of the 
> type, except for floating-point types, where it means the smallest 
> positive value.
> 
> The right way is to have T.min always return the minimum value (duh) and 
> define a separate property T.min_positive.
> 
> The question is, would a lot of code be hurt by such a change?
> 
> 
> Andrei

PS, the guy you really need to ask is Don.  He seems to be the (if not one of a handful of) math/FP guru around here. ;)

-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo