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

*To*: sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: implementation categories, exact rationals*From*: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:59:15 -0400 (EDT)*Cc*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <y9ly84slh9x.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (message from Michael Sperber on Sun, 16 Oct 2005 21:44:10 -1000)*References*: <20051014181146.599D01B77BB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y9ly84slh9x.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

| From: Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 21:44:10 -1000 | | Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: | | > What is the rationale for mandating exact rationals? | | This (from the SRFI document): | | > Under R5RS, it is hard to write programs whose arithmetic is | > portable across the above categories, and it is unnecessarily | > difficult even to write programs whose arithmetic is portable | > between different implementations in the same category. | | > The portability problems can most easily be solved by requiring | > all implementations to support the full numeric tower. Easy for who? Implementing exact non-integers for SCM and Guile would take a lot of work. "Most easily", and also less confusing for users, would be to remove exact non-integers from the language.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: implementation categories, exact rationals***From:*Bradley Lucier

**References**:**implementation categories, exact rationals***From:*Aubrey Jaffer

**Re: implementation categories, exact rationals***From:*Michael Sperber

- Prev by Date:
**Re: implementation categories, exact rationals** - Next by Date:
**Re: integer-length and integer-sqrt** - Previous by thread:
**Re: implementation categories, exact rationals** - Next by thread:
**Re: implementation categories, exact rationals** - Index(es):