Re: infinities reformulated Chongkai Zhu (31 May 2005 07:17 UTC)
Re: infinities reformulated Aubrey Jaffer (31 May 2005 23:47 UTC)
Re: infinities reformulated Thomas Bushnell BSG (02 Jun 2005 15:23 UTC)
Re: infinities reformulated Aubrey Jaffer (02 Jun 2005 16:12 UTC)
Re: infinities reformulated Thomas Bushnell BSG (02 Jun 2005 16:16 UTC)
string->number Aubrey Jaffer (02 Jun 2005 19:10 UTC)
Re: string->number Thomas Bushnell BSG (02 Jun 2005 20:05 UTC)
Re: string->number Aubrey Jaffer (03 Jun 2005 01:59 UTC)
Re: string->number Thomas Bushnell BSG (03 Jun 2005 02:09 UTC)
Re: string->number Aubrey Jaffer (15 Jun 2005 21:10 UTC)
Re: string->number Thomas Bushnell BSG (16 Jun 2005 15:28 UTC)
Re: string->number bear (16 Jun 2005 16:59 UTC)
Re: string->number Aubrey Jaffer (17 Jun 2005 02:16 UTC)
Re: infinities reformulated bear (04 Jun 2005 16:42 UTC)
Re: infinities reformulated Aubrey Jaffer (17 Jun 2005 02:22 UTC)
Re: infinities reformulated bear (19 Jun 2005 17:19 UTC)
Re: infinities reformulated Aubrey Jaffer (20 Jun 2005 03:10 UTC)
Re: infinities reformulated bear (20 Jun 2005 05:46 UTC)
precise-numbers Aubrey Jaffer (26 Jun 2005 01:50 UTC)

Re: infinities reformulated Thomas Bushnell BSG 02 Jun 2005 16:16 UTC

Aubrey Jaffer <xxxxxx@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> To first order:
>
>   (define (precision-of x) (string-length (number->string x)))
>
> R5RS requires all numbers to have external representations; and it
> specifies the allowed formats.

What?  number->string does not specify the allowed formats for exact
numbers, only for inexact (and only for some inexact numbers at that).
This isn't an accident; it was done specifically for just this reason,
to allow for different representations.  See the Rationale:

"The unspecified case allows for infinities, NaNs, and non-flonum
representations."

So if X is an exact version of sqrt 2, it's perfectly fine for
number->string to return anything that string->number can understand.

Thomas