[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] numeric tower
Bill Schottstaedt scripsit:
> 3) Should R7RS-large require support for exact complex numbers?
> No. This strikes me as ridiculous.
> (make-polar 1 1) -> 0.5403023058681398+0.8414709848078965i.
Make-polar is not required to return exact results on exact arguments. In
R7RS-small, make-rectangular isn't required to either: (make-rectangular 1 2)
can return 1+2i, or return 1.0+2.0i, or report an implementation
restriction. The intention of #3 is to determine whether in *large*
implementations, the first result is required. There's no intention to
require make-polar to return exact results.
> 4) Should R7RS-large require inexact complex numbers, to consist of
> pairs of 64-bit IEEE binary floats?
I need to reformulate the ballot to eliminate talk of IEEE in this
question. I'll send that out in a moment.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@x
Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield], one who looks with unconcern
on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground
encumbers him with help? --Samuel Johnson
Scheme-reports mailing list