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 Aubrey Jaffer 17 Oct 2005 21:59 UTC
| From: Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> | Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 21:44:10 -1000 | | 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. Easy for who? Implementing exact non-integers for SCM and Guile would take a lot of work. "Most easily", and also less confusing for users, would be to remove exact non-integers from the language.