[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: Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives*From*: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 02:04:26 +0100*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <20051115001633.49A59600037@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Andrew Wilcox's message of "Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:16:33 -0800 (PST)")*Mail-followup-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*References*: <20051115001633.49A59600037@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Sender*: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

Andrew Wilcox <awilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > To take an example of [Egner et al. 2004], (< x y) in this proposal > returns an *inexact* boolean, if either X or Y is inexact. A boolean is almost always used to choose control flow. Since you can't make control flow inexact, inexactness is not really contagious. It can't be. Inexact booleans don't add any real value. [More comments later.] -- __("< Marcin Kowalczyk \__/ qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx ^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives***From:*John.Cowan

**References**:**Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives***From:*Andrew Wilcox

- Prev by Date:
**Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives** - Next by Date:
**Re: Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives** - Previous by thread:
**Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives** - Next by thread:
**Re: Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives** - Index(es):