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