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

*To*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: number->string should use either no exponent or an e-exponent*From*: Alan Watson <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 20:26:11 +0200*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Old-date*: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:14:51 -0500*User-agent*: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051113)

I think number->string without an explicit precision (and hence write) should be defined to use either no exponent or an e-exponent when its argument satisfies flonum? Scheme A considers exponentless, d-exponent, l-exponent, e-exponent literals as flonums and writes flonums with a d-exponent. Scheme B considers only exponentless, l-exponent, and e-exponent literals as flonums and writes flonums with an e-exponent. Both Scheme A and Scheme B satisfy write-read invariance for flonums as required by SRFI 77, but when Scheme B reads a flonum written by Scheme A, the result is not a flonum. Now, we cannot force inexact numbers to have the same value from implementation to implementation, but I think a flonum should stay a flonum, regardless of whatever happens to its value. If not, one has to filter all flonum input through real->flonum before using the flonum-specific procedures. Ugh. Regards, Alan

- Prev by Date:
**Re: ambiguous sign notation support?** - Next by Date:
**Re: SRFI-77 with more than one flonum representation** - Previous by thread:
**Re: ambiguous sign notation support?** - Next by thread:
**div0 and mod0** - Index(es):