[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: Contagious Inexactness, revision 2*From*: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:12:51 +0100*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <20051116035854.5F0FC600037@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Andrew Wilcox's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:58:54 -0800 (PST)")*Mail-followup-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*References*: <20051116035854.5F0FC600037@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: > Two Scheme implementations returning results flagged as exact, from > the same computation, performed on the same inputs, will return > equal values. I believe this is unimplementable sanely. Assume, for the sake of argument, that (= (expt (sqrt 2) 2) 2) is an example of an expression which is #t and #f on different implementations. Of course with your proposal these are inexact booleans. Now consider this: (define (test) (let ((l '())) (if (= (expt (sqrt 2) 2) 2) (set! l (cons #f l))) (length l))) Does this return an inexact 0 or 1? If yes, how would you implement this? -- __("< Marcin Kowalczyk \__/ qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx ^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

**References**:**Contagious Inexactness, revision 2***From:*Andrew Wilcox

- Prev by Date:
**Contagious Inexactness, revision 2** - Next by Date:
**Re: Contagious Inexactness, revision 2** - Previous by thread:
**Contagious Inexactness, revision 2** - Next by thread:
**Re: Contagious Inexactness, revision 2** - Index(es):