Thanks Peter, applied. On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 03:26:54PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > I'm not happy with the hacky way the reader deals with these, but I could > not really come up with a clean solution for it. Suggestions for > improvement are welcome.
I experimented a bit with splitting the "go negative" logic from the "go inexact" logic to perhaps make things more clear and avoid passing a boolean around, but it didn't really help. One thing I noticed is that now (signum -0.0) => -0.0. Does that seem right? If so, it may be worth documenting that it's both exactness and sign-preserving. Evan _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
