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

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.

*To*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: arithmetic issues*From*: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:30:26 -0700*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <874q773m6s.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Marcin Kowalczyk's message of "Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:25:47 +0200")*References*: <20051021145326.816C11B77BB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20051021155906.GC16464@NYCMJCOWA2> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0510210910130.18969@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20051022020312.GB5632@NYCMJCOWA2> <87mzl2mhd3.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20051022023824.GD5632@NYCMJCOWA2> <87r7adv5ii.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20051023160247.GC7728@NYCMJCOWA2> <8764roowey.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87br1g2d96.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87k6g4m0w6.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q773m6s.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Why no current implementation uses sparse arrays as the representation > of (some) vectors? Or does any? Maybe none has gotten around to it? > If no implementation does a particular thing, then perhaps it's not > a wise choice to do. That's a fundamentally bogus argument. If there's a reason it's unwise, then let's hear it. It needs to be a reason why it's *always* unwise, not just why it's unwise in general-purpose Scheme systems. (Though for the life of me I can't think of any reason there either.) No Scheme implementation that I know of supports writing Scheme programs that include identifiers written in the Devanagari script. But that doesn't mean it's an unwise thing to do; it's just that there aren't many Sanskrit users of Scheme yet. > Leaving room for it only reduces programmer confidence and > encourages them to rely on common practice instead of on standard > guarantees. "Reduces programmer confidence"? Huh? Programmer confidence in what? It's you that seems to have mistaken common practice for a standard guarantee. Rewriting the standard so that it standardizes common practice is not the solution. Thomas

**References**:**arithmetic issues***From:*Aubrey Jaffer

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*John.Cowan

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*bear

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*John.Cowan

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*Thomas Bushnell BSG

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*John.Cowan

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*Thomas Bushnell BSG

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*John.Cowan

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*Thomas Bushnell BSG

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*Thomas Bushnell BSG

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk

- Prev by Date:
**Re: arithmetic issues** - Next by Date:
**Re: arithmetic issues** - Previous by thread:
**Re: arithmetic issues** - Next by thread:
**+nan.0 problems** - Index(es):