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.
> From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx> > Limiting the precision to that of the most-precise inexact argument, > as suggested by Will Clinger and myself at different times, seems > like a relatively practical thing to do (explanations below). > However, it would be forbidden by the current suggested wording, > because it runs against the principle of using a particular inexact > value (expressible in, say, four words because one of the arguments > was an inexact with four words of precision) when there are inexact > values (which are expressible in 1024 words) that are actually > closer to the mathematically expected result. - Yes, I was thinking that as most typical implementations implement inexacts as C float/doubles, that an exact implementation could be viewed possibly as the most precise, albeit not infinite, available numerical representation.