Peter Bex scripsit: > Later I was told that this might be reconsidered if it was shown to be > really difficult to implement.
It's on the ballot now, and so far there are 4 votes in favor to 0 against to remove it. We won't be sure for a week or so, though. > The latest version of this test can be found here: I picked up version 24935. > Outputs of other Schemes would be interesting to see as well, and > suggestions for new testcases are welcome too! I ran tests against Bigloo, Chez, Chibi, Ikarus, IronScheme, Kawa, Larceny, Mosh, SCM, SISC, STklos, Ypsilon on a 32-bit Linux system. I tried Scheme 9, but it fails on the syntax-rules declaration. The modified scripts and results are at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/temp/strconv-results.zip . Here's what I got: Bigloo: No complex or rational numbers. 45 errors. Chez: All features. 18 errors. Chibi: All features. 92 errors. Ikarus: No complex numbers. 34 errors. IronScheme: All features. Lexical scanner gets terminally confused. Kawa: Internal error attempting to compile (Kawa has no interpreter). Larceny: All features. Nan? needs replacement. 10 errors. Mosh: All features. Lexical scanner gets terminally confused. SCM: Inexact complex numbers only. Test "+nan.0+nan.0i" blows up with "Wrong type passed to make-rectangular: 0/0" error. When this is commented out, 28 errors. SISC: All features. Had to comment out Fractions section due to internal errors. 43 errors. STklos: All features. Tests involving fractions whose numerators or denominators are inexact blow up with "string->number: cannot make rational" error. When these are commented out, 19 errors. Ypsilon: Nan? needs replacement. 28 errors. The phrase "Nan? needs replacement" refers to the fact that in R6RS-only systems, nan? accepts real numbers only and cannot be redefined (because it is imported from the base module). I therefore changed "nan?" to "my-nan?" in the script files for those systems. In R6RS-only systems, "nan?" does not accept a complex number and cannot be redefined (because it's imported from a module), so I changed references to "nan?" to "my-nan?" for those systems. > Personally, I'd also vote against the R6RS "123|45" notation WG1 voted not to include it; that vote is not being reconsidered. > One final question: Why was the +nan.0 syntax copied from R6RS but not > the -nan.0 syntax? I think it makes sense to allow -nan.0 as well. It was an oversight. Ticket filed. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Please leave your values Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel --Cordelia Vorkosigan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
