Re: Exactness

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Great, so we can keep the existing types, the existing exact/inexact
>> distinction, and provide space-constant functions as I suggest.
>
> Why not the other way around: that the default behavior is known, and
> implementations may provide other fancy choices which must be turned on
> explicitly?

Nope.  We should maintain consistency over time in the meanings of the
functions.  It is not a decent idea to have the next RnRS standard
specify addition in a way which is fundamentally incompatible with its
predecessors.

I have no objection to a (with ...) wrapper which can encapsulate the
new behavior if you want.

What you are describing as "fancy choices" are, in fact, the way
Scheme has always behaved.