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

Re: reading NaNs

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.

Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>>> To the contrary, I think requesting *any* model should be explicit.
>>> Can you help me out here by explaining *why* it is so painful to be
>>> explicit?
>> Because I see no sane way of *switching* models. They shouldn't be
>> changed, they should be added (adding new numeric types, extending
>> existing operations - not replacing).
> Who spoke of switching models?

So how would you support IEEE and non-IEEE inexact reals at the same
time? Which of them would the syntax like "3.14" resolve to?

   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/