On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:48 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm reformulating the numeric tower ballot to eliminate talk of IEEE, > which is orthogonal to the questions being addressed. I don't think > this will affect anyone's vote except maybe Bill Schottstaedt's. > 4 has changed completely so I'm changing my vote. 1) Should R7RS-large require arbitrarily large (up to implementation > restrictions like memory) exact integers? > Yes (as required by R6RS). [Caveat: I think it would be reasonable for an impl to fall back to inexact representations for numbers that don't fit exactly in memory, rather than throw an exception. This may not be worth mentioning in the standard.] 2) Should R7RS-large require support for exact rational numbers? > Yes (as required by R6RS). 3) Should R7RS-large require support for exact complex numbers? > No (not required by R6RS, contrary impls exist). 4) Should R7RS-large require inexact complex numbers? > Yes. R6RS requires both complex numbers and inexact numbers. Restricting inexact to reals would be inconsistent, and force e.g. make-rectangular on inexact inputs to produce an exact result. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
