arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (21 Oct 2005 14:53 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues John.Cowan (21 Oct 2005 15:59 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues bear (21 Oct 2005 16:39 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues John.Cowan (22 Oct 2005 02:03 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 20:24 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 20:30 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 22:25 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 22:30 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: +nan.0 problems bear (24 Oct 2005 06:04 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (21 Oct 2005 17:15 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (21 Oct 2005 20:24 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (21 Oct 2005 20:32 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (22 Oct 2005 00:26 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (22 Oct 2005 00:45 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (22 Oct 2005 01:17 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (22 Oct 2005 01:22 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: arithmetic issues Bradley Lucier (23 Oct 2005 19:46 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (23 Oct 2005 20:10 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (23 Oct 2005 19:54 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Jens Axel Søgaard (23 Oct 2005 20:01 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (23 Oct 2005 20:50 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 21:12 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 22:31 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 22:33 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 22:50 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 22:57 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 00:53 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 01:05 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 01:45 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:00 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 02:08 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:14 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 02:27 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:45 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 02:13 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:22 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 03:19 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 02:01 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (24 Oct 2005 02:27 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 03:14 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues John.Cowan (24 Oct 2005 05:37 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Per Bothner (24 Oct 2005 07:05 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 07:58 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 08:05 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 08:25 UTC)
reading NaNs Aubrey Jaffer (24 Oct 2005 15:35 UTC)
Re: reading NaNs Per Bothner (24 Oct 2005 17:35 UTC)
Re: reading NaNs bear (24 Oct 2005 19:23 UTC)
Re: reading NaNs Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 18:17 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues bear (24 Oct 2005 06:13 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 06:27 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 07:49 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues bear (24 Oct 2005 16:41 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 07:49 UTC)

Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer 22 Oct 2005 01:17 UTC

 | Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
 | From: bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net>
 |
 | On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, John.Cowan wrote:
 |
 | >Aubrey Jaffer scripsit:
 | >
 | >> I recommend 12.bits minimum precision for both fixnums and
 | >> flonums.
 | >
 | > I think that's way too small, particularly if we are going to
 | > explicitly adopt CL's link between fixnums and {string,vector}
 | > indices.
 |
 | Agreed.  R5RS requires an implementation to support "exact
 | integers" through the range that can be used as vector indices,
 | which IMO is the right thing.  To state that the implementation is
 | not allowed to have arrays accessed by non-fixnums is a needless
 | limitation, especially if the fixnum range is chosen very small.
 | 12 bits, minus one for negative numbers, would mean *all* vectors
 | restricted to less than 1023 elements, and that's uncomfortably
 | small.

My 12.bit recommendation was a minimum for fixnums.  Bignums could be
larger; hence indexes could be larger.  We would expect to encounter
this minimum in toy implementations.  My reasoning was that software
is still being developed for 16.bit processors for many products;
12.bit allows for immediate integers in a 16.bit word.

 | As for strings, pfah.  If you work in corpus linguistics it's not
 | too uncommon to have literally millions of characters in a string.
 | I'd really hate to see strings limited to 1023 characters.

That argues against limiting string lengths to fixnums.

 | >> Being error objects, syntax for NaNs should be unspecified.
 |
 | >I don't see how that follows.
 |
 | He means that NaNs should arise from error operations, not from
 | the normal functioning of the reader.  If (read) returns an error
 | object, it should mean that (read) encountered an error.

Your comments motivated changing srfi-70 so that NaNs became error
objects.  As you also pointed out, there are many different NaNs
possible.  Specifying that all of them print as +nan.0 destroys their
distinctions.

I think that an implementation should be allowed to signal an error
under some conditions where an error object is encountered.  Mandating
readable written representations for error objects prevents an
implementation from signaling such errors.