Ray Dillinger scripsit: > I would far rather be importing + - / * etc from a library of > operators having the semantics I want, and writing code using > them. Then, whether or not a given scheme supports bignums, > fixnums, flonums, etc, the functions imported from that library > name would have the same semantics. That is, code level > configuration, not implementation level configuration.
How do you manage that in practice? If your Scheme has no inexact numbers, how do you import "sin" from a library? > A scheme that supported everything, of course, would have all > libraries available. A scheme that didn't have the %bignum > feature, as you're calling it, would lack the corresponding > libraries. *Having* to import stuff from libraries just to get the simplest things done is unnecessary bureaucracy, IMHO. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known. Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett. There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
