On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:11 PM Jim Rees <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

"If it's the case that only the supported range of exact integers are considered valid for exact-integer vectors, then shouldn't it also be the case that only the set of value-preserved inexact reals are supported by the floating point vectors?

I'm tracking SRFI 4 here, which has had that rule for twenty years. 

I would get it if you said "no, I meant what I said", given that most schemes don't support multi-precision in scalar inexacts but (srfi 160) should support both f32 and f64 vectors -- the round-off error when constructing/assigning f32vectors is expected.

I think we have to say that it is.  It makes it difficult to write good tests of f8vectors at boundary conditions, but them's the breaks.
 
Secondly, with respect to c64 & c128.  When you say "must be an inexact complex number" -- do you mean a number that passes (and (inexact? x) (complex? x)) or one that passes (and (inexact? (real-part x)) (inexact? (imag-part x)))

The former.  R7RS section 6.2.1 says: "In particular, an exact complex number has an exact real part and an exact imaginary part; all other complex numbers are inexact complex numbers."  Earlier reports use the term but don't define it.  This means in particular that 5.0 is an inexact complex number, although some systems evaluate (imag-part? 5.0) to 0 and others to 0.0.  See <https://bitbucket.org/cowan/r7rs-wg1-infra/src/default/ComplexRepresentations.md> for details.

-- 
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
Half the lies they tell about me are true.
        --Tallulah Bankhead, American actress