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

Re: Exactness

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.



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.