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)

Re: implementation categories, exact rationals Michael Sperber 17 Oct 2005 07:44 UTC

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

> What is the rationale for mandating exact rationals?

This (from the SRFI document):

> Under R5RS, it is hard to write programs whose arithmetic is
> portable across the above categories, and it is unnecessarily
> difficult even to write programs whose arithmetic is portable
> between different implementations in the same category.

> The portability problems can most easily be solved by requiring all
> implementations to support the full numeric tower.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla