> On Jul 21, 2026, at 4:08 PM, Bradley Lucier <xxxxxx@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> And, to be honest, I can't see Gambit adopting some of the definitions (like defining (real? x) to be (zero? (imag? x))) and conventions while I'm doing the numerics there.  Perhaps we'll just document the exceptions, I don't know.  But that's up to Marc, and neither I nor Marc will live forever so it probably doesn't matter all that much.

I fully agree here (except for the part about not living forever… I’m still hopeful!).

Brad has done an outstanding job overseeing the development of the Gambit numeric library, and all the decisions have been mulled over over many years of development. In particular the treatment of zeros is well done and principled. In fact Racket even adopted some of the Gambit numeric library semantics as defined by Brad.

I’ll go as far as to say that Brad has the last word when it comes to how a feature will go in the Gambit numeric library.

Marc