> That seems totally right to me. > I wholeheartily disagree.
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 1:06 AM Evan Hanson <ev...@foldling.org> wrote: > > > 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. felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
