[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*: "John.Cowan" <jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:56:40 -0700*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <87sltyraat.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <20051115001633.49A59600037@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87sltyraat.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk scripsit: > 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. Indeed, even without control flow as such the idea is bizarre. If x and y are inexact numbers, is the value of (if (< x y) "foo" "bar") an inexact string? -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! John Cowan <jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

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

**Re: Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives***From:*Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk

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