Per Bothner scripsit:

> Huh?  You're comparing apples and oranges.  The srfi-77 version:
> (define (square-sum x y)
>   (fl+ (fl* x x) (fl* y)))
> doesn't do fixnums either.  Perhaps I misunderstand your point.

No, you're right.

> * Once one has optional type declarations, the need for type-specific
> arithmetic primitives is reduced or eliminated.

How far down the call chain is the type inference to be done; in other
words, do these declarations only affect calls that are statically
within the lambda where they appear?

> * As a matter of style, I believe type declarations are preferable to
> type-specific arithmetic primitives, especially since Type Declarations
> are Good in themselves.

It's a big change to Scheme, though, much bigger than adding a bunch of
new procedures.

--
My corporate data's a mess!                     John Cowan
It's all semi-structured, no less.              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    But I'll be carefree                        xxxxxx@reutershealth.com
    Using XSLT                                  http://www.reutershealth.com
On an XML DBMS.