[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>, William D Clinger <will@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: straw-man [was Re: arithmetic issues]*From*: Paul Schlie <schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:34:34 -0500*Cc*: <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0601211003460.13205@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Thread-index*: AcYfBMMWAYTI4Ir4Edq5dQADk1ictA==*Thread-topic*: straw-man [was Re: arithmetic issues]*User-agent*: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004

> From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx> >> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, William D Clinger wrote: >> Secondly, the standardization of the fixnum/flonum base >> will improve the portability of programs that, for whatever >> reason, already use implementation-specific fixnum or flonum >> operations. > > Erf.... Aesthetics aside, yes, it *is* correct, if you're > going to have these modular-ring fx-foo and limited-precision > fl-foo operations, to make them different from general numeric > operations. This is because they are different operations > from the general numeric operations, and in some circumstances > give different answers. > ... - Upon more reflection, given that it's likely unreasonable to presume that an <exact> implementation must (or even could) reliably support infinitely precise calculations/representations, it must then support finite precision calculations, thereby necessitating its definition of overflow semantics, basically leaving the choice of either modular or saturating semantics; where either may be considered reasonable, it seems undisputed that modular semantics tend to be the simplest and most natural default of most machine and/or SW implementations, and does not preclude the throwing of a recoverable overflow exception if supported by the base implementation. (although believe exposing explicitly typed functions are unnecessary)

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: straw-man [was Re: arithmetic issues]***From:*bear

**References**:**Re: straw-man [was Re: arithmetic issues]***From:*bear

- Prev by Date:
**Re: straw-man [was Re: arithmetic issues]** - Next by Date:
**Re: straw-man [was Re: arithmetic issues]** - Previous by thread:
**Re: straw-man [was Re: arithmetic issues]** - Next by thread:
**Re: straw-man [was Re: arithmetic issues]** - Index(es):