On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, William D Clinger wrote:

>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...

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

Apparently you needn't actually make your points and
convince anyone of them.  That's the beauty of the
SRFI process of course; you can finalize regardless
of whether you convince anyone you're right, so of
course you're right about not needing to respond.

				Bear