On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 08:58:04PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:49:34AM -0700, Shawn Rutledge wrote: > > (which I'm not sure is the best way, I just wrote it late last night) > > (and that was before I googled and discovered the Douglas-Peucker line > > simplification algo, which is what I really want) > > > > But flonums continue to exist after you do (use numbers) so why should > > the behavior change suddenly? > > Because flonums are no longer used as a poor substitute for large > integral numbers :) > > However, it does make sense to keep the same semantics for flonums, so > I'll change this in numbers unless anyone disagrees.
The latest version (2.1) of numbers contains this fix. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
