On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Jim Rees <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

1) @vector->list and xxxxxx@vector->list both take an optional start and end argument.
Why not @vector->vector and vector->@vector also?

Fixed in my editor's copy.

2) Does anything need to be said in the document about how the different floating-point precision vectors interact with Schemes that provide multiple scalar inexact real precisions?

I think it's fairly clear that for values going IN to a f{32,64}vector, the argument must be any inexact real, no matter what the precision, and intuitively if information is lost in the conversion (either by rounding or pegging to +/-INF) that's the users's problem.

But would this be an acceptable result on a system where single-precision is offered while double-precision is the default?

(f32vector-ref (f32vector 1.5) 0) ==> 1.5f0

It would be. I have added the following paragraph:

The value retrieved from a particular element of a homogeneous vector must be the same in the sense of eqv? to the value placed there by the constructor or the most recent mutator to affect that element, with the following exception. In a Scheme system with more than one precision of exact numbers, the value retrieved from an element of a float or complex vector may be different in the sense of eqv? from the value placed there, in which case it must still be the same in the sense of =. Thus, in Racket or Kawa, where the 64-bit value 1.5 is not eqv? to the 32-bit value 1.5f0, the value 1.5 placed in an f32vector or c64vector may be retrieved as the value 1.5f0.

Thanks for the reports.

John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org

Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income.

--Lord Macnaghten (1901)