|
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)
|
Aubrey Jaffer <xxxxxx@alum.mit.edu> writes: > Yes, I should have written "inexact numbers". Ok, but when we speak of symbolic "infinite precision" representations of sqrt(2), presumably we are using exact numbers. > Can number->string return a string which can't be READ as a number? > > I had thought that 6.2.4 "Syntax of numerical constants" and 7.1.1 > "Lexical structure" applied to the results of NUMBER->STRING. If they > are independent, a note about that should be added to the report. I think they do, but implementations certainly can extend the syntax of numbers if they wish (provided that NUMBER->STRING, STRING->NUMBER, and READ all behave in the expected way). Thomas
