[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Two specific suggestions.

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 70 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 70 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Wed, 18 May 2005, Bradley Lucier wrote:

>1.  I believe that every numerical value should have an external
>representation.  There are many different NaNs (the only requirement
>is that the biased exponent field should be a maximum and the
>mantissa field be nonzero), so it should be possible to specify or
>determine this information about a NaN from its external representation.

This is reasonable SRFI material; if widely implemented, it is
likely to become standard.

>2.  If Scheme really wants to get serious about floating-point
>arithmetic, one should be able to specify the precision of floating-
>point operations.  "One-precision-fits-all" doesn't cut it for
>serious code.

I agree, but I would prefer that numeric precision be part of
numeric representation, (and syntax) and have all operations
return a result of the same precision as the least precise
argument.  The exponent markers S, F, E, D, and L are not
sufficiently general, and IMO present the information in the
wrong part of the number; to me, "precision" is a set of
values denoting different varieties of "inexact", and therefore
I would like to see it combined with the "inexact" prefix somehow.