On 8/17/05, John.Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > felix winkelmann scripsit: > > > Q1: should `signum' be exactness-preserving? (i.e. should inexactness > > be contagious) > > Yes, it should. Returning an exact 0 for the signum of 0.0 would suggest > that 0.0 can only represent an exact 0, whereas it can in fact represent > any number less than e and greater than -e, where e is the smallest > strictly positive flonum.
Hm. I think I'll do change it accordingly, then. > > > Q2: Does "#.<EXP>" (read-time-eval) make sense? (controlled via a > > parameter to avoid unexpected securty issues) > > IMHO #, (SRFI-10) provides a reasonable balance between flexibility and > security already, because it limits the possibilities to a predefined > list of reader-constructor procedures rather than allowing arbitrary evals. > In particular, allowing full evaluation in *data* seems particularly > dangerous. > I think SRFI-10 is quite correct in saying that a mere on-off switch is > too crude. So I'd say don't add this. Yes, SRFI-10 is in fact sufficient. > > While I'm at it, I think it would be useful for you to advertise that SWIG > supports Chicken, as I only found this out at the SWIG site. People are > probably writing their own wrappers when they could and should be using > SWIG at least for the lower-level part of the job. > Will do, thanks for the suggestion. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
