Brian Mastenbrook scripsit: > Can you point to another example of a dynamically-typed language that > allows implementations to set a (very small) bound on the largest > representable exact integer, and also provides the exact -> inexact > overflow semantics of Scheme? I'm not thinking of anything off the > top of my head.
I can't think of anything offhand either. There are really only four possibilities for incalculable or unrepresentable results in exact arithmetic: return the right answer (Scheme with bignums), return an inexact answer (Scheme without bignums), return a wrong answer (wrapping semantics), or return a special token (as IEEE floats do). > What I'm suggesting is that a program should be able to explicitly > request overflow-error semantics even on an implementation which > normally implements exact -> inexact overflow. That doesn't seem unreasonable. -- Principles. You can't say A is John Cowan <[email protected]> made of B or vice versa. All mass http://www.ccil.org/~cowan is interaction. --Richard Feynman _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
