|
floating point and other comments
Alex Shinn
(18 Dec 2003 02:58 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Ken Dickey
(18 Dec 2003 16:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Alex Shinn
(19 Dec 2003 01:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Ken Dickey
(20 Dec 2003 02:34 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments Alex Shinn (20 Dec 2003 08:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
bear
(20 Dec 2003 19:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Alex Shinn
(22 Dec 2003 02:16 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
bear
(23 Dec 2003 02:01 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Alex Shinn
(23 Dec 2003 04:38 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Ken Dickey
(22 Dec 2003 02:56 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Per Bothner
(20 Dec 2003 18:05 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Ken Dickey
(22 Dec 2003 00:41 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Alex Shinn
(22 Dec 2003 03:50 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Ken Dickey
(22 Dec 2003 17:05 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Alex Shinn
(23 Dec 2003 05:23 UTC)
|
|
Re: floating point and other comments
Alex Shinn
(23 Dec 2003 05:26 UTC)
|
Re: floating point and other comments Alex Shinn 20 Dec 2003 08:56 UTC
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 06:13:27PM +0100, Ken Dickey wrote: > I will be happy to work with you on an "advanced format" spec which > includes this if you would like. OK, but my personal format just took a turn for the weird and there are some issues I want to work out first. And if we ever want to get "complete CL format" we'll need a circular-write SRFI and a pretty-print SRFI. One minor question, what case does ~x use for hexstrings? R5RS doesn't specify this for number->string. An interesting extension some schemes use is to use the case of the x (i.e. distinguish between ~x and ~X). Also, the spec says it is an error to pass fewer arguments than needed, but is it ok to pass more arguments? -- Alex