implementation categories, exact rationals Aubrey Jaffer (14 Oct 2005 18:29 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
John.Cowan
(14 Oct 2005 19:26 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
Aubrey Jaffer
(14 Oct 2005 19:38 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
John.Cowan
(14 Oct 2005 20:16 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
bear
(16 Oct 2005 18:08 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
Michael Sperber
(17 Oct 2005 07:44 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
Aubrey Jaffer
(17 Oct 2005 21:59 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
Bradley Lucier
(17 Oct 2005 22:07 UTC)
|
implementation categories, exact rationals Aubrey Jaffer 14 Oct 2005 18:11 UTC
| Most implementations of Scheme fall into one of the following | categories: | | * fixnums only (now rare except in toy implementations) | * fixnums and flonums only | * exact rationals and flonums only (no imaginary numbers) | * the complete numeric tower SCM, Guile, and SCM-Mac (and one presumes Galapagos and WinSCM) have fixnums, bignums, and real and complex flonums. SCM and its derivatives have a large installed base. In particular, Guile is part of every Fedora GNU/Linux installation. This category should be included in your list. | This SRFI proposes to revise section 6.2 ("Numbers") of R5RS by: | | * requiring a Scheme implementation to provide the full tower, | including exact rationals of arbitrary precision, exact | rectangular complex numbers with rational real and imaginary | parts, and inexact real and complex arithmetic What is the rationale for mandating exact rationals? Over 15 years I have written numerical Scheme code for everything from symbolic algebra to Galois fields to linear systems to optics simulations without needing exact rationals. A case could be made if (expt -26. 1/3) returned -2.9624960684073702; but I know of no Scheme implementation that does so.