bear wrote:
> You've promoted semantics which are mere accidents of hardware
> implementation to the level of requirements.  I firmly believe
> that any scheme code which relies for its correctness on an
> overflow or a roundoff is in error, so your "type specific
> operations" are seen as implementing things which are not, in
> fact, correct representations of the operations after which
> they are named.

You are wrong about that.  The rest of your argument rests
upon that incorrect belief, so I needn't respond to it.

Will