Re: string->number | Simplelists

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: string->number Thomas Bushnell BSG 02 Jun 2005 20:05 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