[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Contagious Inexactness, revision 2
My thanks to Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk, John Cowan, Bear, and Dave
Mason for their comments on my proposal.
What particularly struck me was how confusing many readers found the
wording of my first revision.
Some people ended up arguing against a position that I had not
actually intended to propose...
I've rewritten the proposal and elaborated my treatment of inexactness
in the hope that my presentation will now be more clear.
I welcome comments, both for and against the proposal, as well as
Contagious Inexactness in R5RS
R5RS provides a mechanism whereby the result of a numeric calculation
may be determined to be an exact result, or a possibly inaccurate
A number is inexact if it was written as an inexact constant, if it
was derived using inexact ingredients, or if it was derived using
inexact operations. Thus inexactness is a contagious property of a
However, it is well known that the design of contagious inexactness in
R5RS has serious problems [Egner et al. 2004]:
* The existing exactness or inexactness of a number is used to
determine whether further mathematical operations perform
(perhaps slow) accurate calculations or (hopefully fast)
This violation of good design for generic procedures engenders
In addition, the programmer is forced to lose exactness
information in order to obtain either an accurate or fast
* The standard treats *numbers* as being exact or inexact, which is
untrue and confuses the issue of whether the result of the
computer calculation (which is a particular number) is exactly
equal to the ideal mathematical result of the calculation (which
is another particular number, perhaps the same, perhaps
* R5RS cannot tell us whether the result of a calculation is exact
for some expressions for which knowing that would be particularly
useful, such as (< x y).
In SRFI-77 there are two competing alternatives for generic
arithmetic. R5RS-style Generic Arithmetic preserves contagious
inexactness without solving the serious problems of R5RS, while
Generic Exact Arithmetic avoids these problems at the cost of losing
As a professional programmer with sixteen years of experience in
financial, manufacturing, non-profit, higher education, and software
industries, I am particularly sensitive to pernicious bugs: bugs that
arise in production software and harm users, even when code has been
written by experienced programmers and tested with due diligence. I
see the use of higher level languages as especially important in
avoiding the most common of pernicious bugs such as dangling pointers
and buffer overflows.
From this perspective I cannot support R5RS style generic arithmetic.
However, I view the idea contagious inexactness as a useful one and
worth the effort to see if a useful and safe design can be developed.
This proposal aims to provide a useful model for contagious
inexactness, while avoiding the problems of R5RS.
A New Definition of Exactness
In this proposal, exactness is no longer a property of a number or a
particular numeric representation.
Instead, it is an indication of whether or not a computation is
returning a result precisely equal to the true, mathematical
Two Scheme implementations returning results flagged as exact, from
the same computation, performed on the same inputs, will return
Note however, that simply because one Scheme implementation is able to
return an exact result from a particular computation does not imply
that another Scheme implementation will be able to do so.
The result of evaluating an expression may be tested with the
predicates EXACT? and INEXACT?
Because there is no longer "exact" or "inexact" representations of
numbers, I do not include the EXACT->INEXACT and INEXACT->EXACT
Instead, I will use an INEXACT procedure to explicitly flag the
returned value as not being known to be equal to its true value.
For example, if I perform a measurement in the physical world, I may
get a particular number as a the result of the measurement, but I know
that it is approximate to the actual value.
(exact? (> (inexact 4) 5)) => #f
Note that INEXACT does only one thing: it sets the "inexactness bit"
on its return value. It does not, for example, change its argument
from one representation to another.
(exact? (if (< 4 (inexact 5)) 'a 'b)) => #f
It may seem strange that expressions that return values such as
symbols and strings may be flagged as "inexact". However, it is not
the symbol or string that is considered inexact, it is the computation
that produced the value that is inexact.
For example, my secret decoder ring may yield a string with letters
between A and Z. However, on occasion I may fumble the decoding
process. Thus while I get one and only string from the secret decoder
ring, the process that produced the string may have introduced errors.
The value is flagged as "inexact", indicating the string I received
may not be equal to its true value.
In general an operation returns an inexact result if any of its
arguments are inexact. However, a Scheme implementation may return a
result flagged as exact if the inexactness of an argument does not
affect the exactness of the result.
(exact? (* 0 (inexact 5))) => #t
(exact? (car (cons 'a (inexact 'b)))) => #t
Unlike R5RS, two values do not become unequal if they are flagged with
differing exactness -- exactness is an orthogonal property. A string
is a string, and I may compare one against another regardless of
whether the string resulted from a precise computation or not.
However, inexactness is contagious across equivalence procedures as
usual, so the result of checked whether two values are the same will
be flagged as inexact if any of the arguments are inexact.
(eqv? 4 (inexact 4)) => #t
(exact? (eqv? 4 (inexact 4))) => #f
Flonums Are Not Fuzzy
Creating confusion is the common description of floating point
numbers as being an "inexact" representation.
Floating point *operations* are, of course, approximate. They return
a number close to, but often different than, the true mathematical
result of the operation.
If you wish to convert an arbitrary rational into a floating point
representation, naturally you will often end up with a number that is
close to, but usually different than, the number you started with.
However, once you have a floating point number (aside from the special
cases of INF and NaN), you have one specific particular rational
The number you have may not be EQUAL to the mathematically correct
number, but it is a specific number.
This misperception that "flonums are inexact" creates confusion over
expressions that are valid in my proposal, such as:
The idea of an "inexact string" is obviously nonsensical. A string is
not fuzzy, it is one and only one string. Yet that is exactly my
point about rational flonums. (Please forgive the pun!)
Useful Generic Operators
I move on to constructing useful generic procedures, now that we have
Generic operators are useful if they implement the *same* operation
while accepting different types.
For example, in Perl "." is a string concatenation operator. It
always concatenates. But it accepts numbers, which it will convert to
1 . 2 => "12"
In practice this works well. I use this principle throughout my
ACCURATE+ performs an accurate (if perhaps slow) add calculation. It
returns a result precisely equal to the ideal mathematical addition of
Note that the *calculation* performed by ACCURATE+ is not affected
by any arguments which happen to be flagged as inexact.
Like other operators, inexactness is contagious. Calling ACCURATE+ on
an argument flagged as inexact will return a result also flagged as
ACCURATE+ is a generic procedure that accepts numbers in any
representation, as long as they can be added accurately. In
particular, ACCURATE+ accepts rational flonums.
I agree with [Egner et al. 2004] that flonum +0 and -0 should be
treated as 0 in accurate calculations.
The Scheme implementation is free to return any type representing the
number, as long as the result is accurate.
ACCURATE+ signals an error if it is passed an argument that cannot be
added accurately, such as INF.
FAST+ performs a fast (if perhaps approximate) calculation.
FAST+ is a generic procedure, which like ACCURATE+, accepts numbers in
Usually, and any time an approximate calculation is performed, FAST+
will return a result flagged as inexact.
FAST+ is allowed to return a result flagged as exact when passed exact
arguments, if the calculation was not approximate. For example, a
Scheme implementation might choose to perform an accurate fixnum
addition on fixnum arguments.
FAST+ is free to convert its arguments into a representation which is
convenient for fast arithmetic, such as a flonum. Such conversion may
occur even if a large amount of precision is lost. For example, a
bignum larger than the largest flonum might be converted to INF.
Naturally, if any approximate conversions do take place, the result is
flagged as inexact.
Comparison with Generic Exact Arithmetic
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.
Unlike with Generic Exact Arithmetic, inexactness information is not
lost when an accurate add is used.
Comparison with R5RS-style Generic Arithmetic
Like R5RS-style Generic Arithmetic, in my proposal inexactness is
contagious. This is a natural reflection of the idea that if you
perform an operation on inexact arguments, you're going to get an
My proposal avoids some of the limitations of R5RS:
* Inexactness is truly contagious.
* Programmers are not forced to lose exactness information to use
* Generic procedures always perform the same operation across
arguments of different types.
Comparison with Exact Arithmetic
ACCURATE+ is similar to ex+, given that what SRFI-77 calls "exact
operations" is what I call "accurate operations".
The differences are that ACCURATE+ accepts any kind of number,
including flonums (leaving out only NaN and the infinities), and that
inexactness information is not lost when the programmer wishes to use
an accurate operation.
Incomplete Though It Is
Again, there are obviously many more issues that would need to be
dealt with for a complete proposal.
My focus on this revision was to attempt to clarify my explanation of
the proposal. I welcome comments, both for and against.