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

*To*: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: implementation categories, exact rationals*From*: Bradley Lucier <lucier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:07:41 -0500*Cc*: Bradley Lucier <lucier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <20051017215915.B80DA1B77BB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <20051014181146.599D01B77BB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y9ly84slh9x.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20051017215915.B80DA1B77BB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Oct 17, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Aubrey Jaffer wrote:

| 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.

Brad

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

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

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

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