On 29 Sep 2009, at 10:00 pm, John Cowan wrote: >> If I can accept approximate answers like 1.000001e+23, then I should >> tell the implementation this by explicitly asking for it with (f+ >> 99999999999999999999999 99999999999999999) or some such, I think. > > Note that the "approximate answer" is a consequence of Chicken's junk > C-library output routines. (Someone's working on replacing them, I > think.) The result really is exact, as you can see by evaluating > (eqv? (+ > 99999999999999999999999 99999999999999999) 100000099999999999999998.0) > in plain Chicken.
Yeah, but (a) the system no longer knows it's exact so will say it isn't and (b) there is another, higher, limit beyond which it really stops being exact, at which the argument certainly applies... ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/ Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/author/alaric/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
