On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:48:58PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: I haven't followed this discussion closely, so forgive me for being completely unsure who is allowed to vote. On the off chance voting is open to anyone, here's my vote:
> 1) Should R7RS-large require arbitrarily large (up to implementation > restrictions like memory) exact integers? No. I don't see a reason why it should. Particular libraries within R7RS large can require it where necessary. > 2) Should R7RS-large require support for exact rational numbers? No. Same as above. > 3) Should R7RS-large require support for exact complex numbers? No. The majority of Schemes don't even support this, AFAICT, so it's not the report's place to suddenly start requiring it. The report should attempt to standardise things available "in the wild", and only where nothing useful exists yet should it *cautiously* invent new things. > 4) Should R7RS-large require inexact complex numbers? No. If compnums are required for a particular library in R7RS-large, it may do so, but only for that library. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
