[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*: 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):