Bill Schottstaedt scripsit: > 3) Should R7RS-large require support for exact complex numbers? > > No. This strikes me as ridiculous. > (make-polar 1 1) -> 0.5403023058681398+0.8414709848078965i.
Make-polar is not required to return exact results on exact arguments. In R7RS-small, make-rectangular isn't required to either: (make-rectangular 1 2) can return 1+2i, or return 1.0+2.0i, or report an implementation restriction. The intention of #3 is to determine whether in *large* implementations, the first result is required. There's no intention to require make-polar to return exact results. > 4) Should R7RS-large require inexact complex numbers, to consist of > pairs of 64-bit IEEE binary floats? I need to reformulate the ballot to eliminate talk of IEEE in this question. I'll send that out in a moment. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield], one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground encumbers him with help? --Samuel Johnson _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
