Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

comments on latest draft William D Clinger (04 Jun 2017 05:35 UTC)
Re: comments on latest draft William D Clinger (05 Jun 2017 18:39 UTC)
Re: comments on latest draft William D Clinger (07 Jun 2017 03:50 UTC)
Re: comments on latest draft Bradley Lucier (07 Jun 2017 19:55 UTC)
Re: comments on latest draft William D Clinger (07 Jun 2017 23:25 UTC)
Re: comments on latest draft Bradley Lucier (08 Jun 2017 01:09 UTC)
Re: comments on latest draft William D Clinger (09 Jun 2017 15:19 UTC)
Re: comments on latest draft Bradley Lucier (09 Jun 2017 17:11 UTC)
Re: comments on latest draft Bradley Lucier (09 Jun 2017 17:18 UTC)

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