[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unifying the two generic arithmetic alternatives
Andrew Wilcox scripsit:
> Note that a floating point number (aside from INF and NaN) represents
> one and precisely one rational number. Thus to perform an accurate
> calculation with a flonum, we simply use its actual value.
In fact not. When you add 1.0 to MAX_SAFE_INT_FLONUM (the smallest flonum
whose successor is not representable as a flonum, 2^53 for IEEE 64-bit floats),
the result of flonum addition interpreted as a rational number is *not*
> FAST+ always performs a fast (if perhaps inaccurate) operation --
> returning a flonum, or a complex number made up of flonums.
Why a flonum? Addition of two fixnums with no overflow should be able to
return a fixnum, no?
> Thus I propose that support for EXACT?, INEXACT? and contagious
> inexactness be optional in R6RS.
Sounds to me like a very specialized feature that should be supported outside
the core if at all.
> ACCURATE+ isn't *required* to make any conversions in the types of its
> arguments in the way that Generic Exact Arithmetic converts all
> arguments to "exact" representations.
It's not required, but it's very hard to avoid it.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where
no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in
the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,
James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath