This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Per Bothner scripsit: > Huh? You're comparing apples and oranges. The srfi-77 version: > (define (square-sum x y) > (fl+ (fl* x x) (fl* y))) > doesn't do fixnums either. Perhaps I misunderstand your point. No, you're right. > * Once one has optional type declarations, the need for type-specific > arithmetic primitives is reduced or eliminated. How far down the call chain is the type inference to be done; in other words, do these declarations only affect calls that are statically within the lambda where they appear? > * As a matter of style, I believe type declarations are preferable to > type-specific arithmetic primitives, especially since Type Declarations > are Good in themselves. It's a big change to Scheme, though, much bigger than adding a bunch of new procedures. -- My corporate data's a mess! John Cowan It's all semi-structured, no less. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan But I'll be carefree jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Using XSLT http://www.reutershealth.com On an XML DBMS.