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.
> >> You've promoted semantics which are mere accidents of hardware > >> implementation to the level of requirements. I firmly believe > >> that any scheme code which relies for its correctness on an > >> overflow or a roundoff is in error... > > >You are wrong about that. The rest of your argument rests > >upon that incorrect belief, so I needn't respond to it. > > Apparently you needn't actually make your points and > convince anyone of them. That's the beauty of the > SRFI process of course; you can finalize regardless > of whether you convince anyone you're right, so of > course you're right about not needing to respond. > > Bear We already know that SRFI-77 will be withdrawn before finalization, so your snipe at the SRFI process was entirely gratuitous. As for not actually making your points and convincing anyone of them, please go back and read the paragraph to which I was responding. Its first sentence is a factually incorrect statement, baldly stated as fact without any supporting evidence, which I have already noted in previous messages. Its second sentence states one of your firm personal beliefs, also stated without any supporting evidence, which happens to be factually incorrect. I consider it a waste of time to respond to people who make arguments based entirely upon personal beliefs that are not supported by any evidence, and whose incorrectness has already been noted within the archive. If you truly believe that finite rings and fields are useless, then I would refer you to the implementation of bignum arithmetic in Larceny, whose source code is available to you. Will