Bug in srfi-48?
Donald Allen
(11 Oct 2017 19:42 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(11 Oct 2017 19:46 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Donald Allen
(11 Oct 2017 20:36 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(11 Oct 2017 21:33 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48? Donald Allen (12 Oct 2017 13:04 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(12 Oct 2017 19:07 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Donald Allen
(12 Oct 2017 19:42 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Shiro Kawai
(12 Oct 2017 20:40 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(12 Oct 2017 23:13 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Donald Allen
(13 Oct 2017 02:09 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Donald Allen
(13 Oct 2017 15:58 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Donald Allen
(13 Oct 2017 16:13 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Marc Feeley
(13 Oct 2017 17:50 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Donald Allen
(13 Oct 2017 17:52 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Shiro Kawai
(13 Oct 2017 19:54 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
John Cowan
(13 Oct 2017 17:34 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Donald Allen
(13 Oct 2017 17:51 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Alex Shinn
(14 Oct 2017 13:03 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(14 Oct 2017 13:11 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(18 Oct 2017 18:20 UTC)
|
Re: Bug in srfi-48?
Donald Allen
(18 Oct 2017 19:11 UTC)
|
Arthur -- Thanks for the quick response. From your description of the patch, it sounds like you addressed the error that occurs using Gambit. But did you also have a look at the odd rounding behavior I reported in my first message? /Don On 11 October 2017 at 17:32, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Donald Allen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> Maybe this will help: > > > Thanks. I tried your examples in both Gambit and Guile. They worked fine > in Guile, but in Gambit, I got the same results you did. It turns out that > this is because number->string in Gambit doesn't prefix numbers whose > absolute value is less than one with a zero, i.e. it produces ".997" instead > of "0.997". However, compose-with-digits assumes the latter. > > I've attached a fix for this bug. Note that I have not checked for this > problem on all code paths. > > I've included Ken Dickey, the author of SRFI 48, among the recipients in > case he would like to comment — or approve of my applying the patch to the > public implementation as an erratum. > > For reference, here's the archive of the discussion so far: > > https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-48/dates/2017/10 > > Thanks.