Re: comments on latest draft
William D Clinger 05 Jun 2017 18:30 UTC
I have started to work on a portable implementation of SRFI 144
that will not rely on any FFI and will import only R7RS small and
the (rnrs arithmetic *) libraries of R6RS, making a few more
assumptions such as IEEE arithmetic for inexact reals. (Creating
this portable, FFI-independent implementation is something I have
to do anyway because Larceny runs on some platforms for which no
FFI is available.)
Implementing the special functions will be a bit of work, but not
unmanageable.
Here are some more comments on the draft at
http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan/temp/srfi-144.html
The spec for flnegative? refers to fl< instead of fl<? .
The spec for flinteger-exponent says it returns "the same as
flexponent as an exact integer", but that is not possible because
flexponent usually returns a non-integer.
Concerning the specs for flmax and flmin, I wrote:
> The "fl-greatest or fl-least otherwise" at the end of the spec
> should be "fl-least or fl-greatest otherwise".
That's almost as wrong as the current draft. The phrase should be
"(fl- fl-greatest) or flgreatest otherwise".
Will Clinger