On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 12:56:59PM -0400, Aaron W. Hsu wrote: > On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:28:46 -0400, Peter Bex <[email protected]> wrote: > I have attached the results for Chez Scheme 8.3 (R6RS). I had to make some > basic modifications to the prelude, but I also had to change the test in > the macro (and res (nan? res) ...) to (and (real? res) (nan? res) ...) > because Chez Scheme's NAN? only accepts REAL? values.
You can also just uncomment the definition of nan? at the top, I think. > > As you can see from the outputs, the "errors" in these Schemes are mostly > > related to padding syntax, and especially such gems like "#x1#+1#i" or > > "#e1#/2". Surprisingly, there's also lots of errors related to allowing > > the decimal syntax for bases other than 10 (especially in Racket). > > Chez doesn't appear to have any errors related to the padding, but it does > exhibit the same flexibility that Racket has regarding these decimal > syntaxes. How does Chez interpret "#x1.3e1"? Racket says it's 1.242431640625 but 19.0 is equally valid (or even 11.875 if the exponent is taken as 10^n). The same issue exists in Schemes (like Chicken) which accept other bases than 2, 8, 10 and 16 for string->number; "+i" can be either 18+0i or 0+1i and the other exponent notations s, f, d and l I think that's why there are only definitions for 10 in the syntax, but I agree that providing this kind of extension makes some sense. 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 _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
