[Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
Hi, It looks like a bug: Mingw #;1> (print 1.0 "\n" 2.0 "\n" 3.10) 1. 2. 3.1 Any other platform (I have access to) #;1> (print 1.0 "\n" 2.0 "\n" 3.10) 1.0 2.0 3.1 Ciao, Michele ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
Michele La Monaca scripsit: > Mingw > #;1> (print 1.0 "\n" 2.0 "\n" 3.10) > 1. > 2. > 3.1 It's a deviation but not a bug. Except for the four cases of +inf.0, -inf.0, +nan.0, and -0.0, Chicken uses the local C's idea of number-to-string conversion. Since "1." is a valid Scheme inexact number, that's perfectly fine. -- How they ever reached any conclusion at all is starkly unknowable to the human mind.http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:44 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Chicken uses the local C's idea of number-to-string conversion. Not the best approach I think. I would rather prefer a consistent behavior. > Since "1." is a valid Scheme inexact number, that's perfectly fine. Being a valid Scheme number it's not a valid reason to dislay it as it is, IMHO. Michele ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
Michele La Monaca scripsit: > > Chicken uses the local C's idea of number-to-string conversion. > > Not the best approach I think. I would rather prefer a consistent behavior. If you want a specific output format, use the fmt egg. > Being a valid Scheme number it's not a valid reason to dislay it as > it is, IMHO. R5RS/R7RS merely require that "the result contains a decimal point and is expressed using the minimum number of digits (exclusive of exponent and trailing zeroes) needed to make the above expression true" (s.v. `number->string`). Both "1." and "1.0" satisfy that rule. -- No saves, Antonio, loke es morirse en su lingua. Es komoJohn Cowan kedarse soliko en el silensyo kada dya ke Dyo da, komo co...@ccil.org ser sikileoso sin saver porke. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Marcel Cohen, 1985 ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:15:31PM +0200, Michele La Monaca wrote: > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:44 PM, John Cowan wrote: > > Chicken uses the local C's idea of number-to-string conversion. > > Not the best approach I think. I would rather prefer a consistent behavior. Windows is being obnoxiously "different" here, and IIRC we've discussed this before and decided to accept things are the way they are, because it's just too difficult to make Windows play nice without providing a complete implementation of number->string ourselves. There's even a test which is disabled on Windows because it prints numbers differently, which is rather unfortunate. The main problem is that none of the CHICKEN core developers use Windows on a regular basis (or just don't use Windows, period), so nobody can put in the effort required to make this relatively minor thing work just right. There are worse things wrong with CHICKEN on Windows than that it prints numbers differently! > > Since "1." is a valid Scheme inexact number, that's perfectly fine. > > Being a valid Scheme number it's not a valid reason to dislay it as it is, > IMHO. It gets read back the same as if it was written with the trailing zero, and if you write it out again you get the same output. In my opinion, that's not any different from UNIX, only there's a slight difference in the default representation. It doesn't cause any incompatibilities AFAIK. All in all, the reasons are valid enough. Anyway: I for one don't oppose changing it to match the UNIX output, if you'd care to provide a patch. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
If you're really concerned about this (which is ultimately aesthetic) then you should consider setting flonum-print-precision to 17, which will make an actual difference in rare cases. http://api.call-cc.org/doc/library/flonum-print-precision On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Michele La Monaca wrote: > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:44 PM, John Cowan wrote: > >> Chicken uses the local C's idea of number-to-string conversion. > > Not the best approach I think. I would rather prefer a consistent behavior. > >> Since "1." is a valid Scheme inexact number, that's perfectly fine. > > Being a valid Scheme number it's not a valid reason to dislay it as it is, > IMHO. > > Michele > > ___ > Chicken-users mailing list > Chicken-users@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote: > If you're really concerned about this (which is ultimately aesthetic) Is this acceptable? C:\TMP>chicken-status | tail -3 socket ... version: 0.2.3 srfi-37 .. version: 1.3.1 win32-msgbox version: 1. > then you should consider setting flonum-print-precision to 17, which will > make an actual difference in rare > cases. http://api.call-cc.org/doc/library/flonum-print-precision It doesn't seem to do any difference (in this case at least). Thanks, anyway. Michele ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
Heh. That is pretty amusing, but more a formatting issue on the part of chicken-status. Or you could chalk it up to the egg's use of a flonum instead of a string or symbolic version number (0.2.3 is read as a symbol, whereas 0.2 is read as a number). For example, were you to use (version 1.00), it would read as a flonum and display "1.0" on UNIX, which is just as incorrect as "1." in my opinion. One way to quickly fix this for your case is to change (version 1.0) to (version "1.0") in your .setup file. I try to use string version numbers exclusively now for consistency's sake. Jim On Jul 9, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Michele La Monaca wrote: > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote: >> If you're really concerned about this (which is ultimately aesthetic) > > Is this acceptable? > > C:\TMP>chicken-status | tail -3 > socket ... version: 0.2.3 > srfi-37 .. version: 1.3.1 > win32-msgbox version: 1. > >> then you should consider setting flonum-print-precision to 17, which will >> make an actual difference in rare >> cases. http://api.call-cc.org/doc/library/flonum-print-precision > > It doesn't seem to do any difference (in this case at least). Thanks, anyway. > > Michele ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:56:19PM -0500, Jim Ursetto wrote: > Heh. That is pretty amusing, but more a formatting issue on the part of > chicken-status. Or you could chalk it up to the egg's use of a flonum > instead of a string or symbolic version number (0.2.3 is read as a symbol, > whereas 0.2 is read as a number). For example, were you to use (version > 1.00), it would read as a flonum and display "1.0" on UNIX, which is just as > incorrect as "1." in my opinion. > > One way to quickly fix this for your case is to change (version 1.0) to > (version "1.0") in your .setup file. I try to use string version numbers > exclusively now for consistency's sake. Same here. And what's more, flonums can't really be compared for equality (in general), which may lead to more subtle and hard-to-find problems. We should probably change chicken-install to reject non-string version numbers, but it's probably too late to do this now and may cause too much breakage. Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
From: Michele La Monaca Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:12:58 +0200 > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote: >> If you're really concerned about this (which is ultimately aesthetic) > > Is this acceptable? > > C:\TMP>chicken-status | tail -3 > socket ... version: 0.2.3 > srfi-37 .. version: 1.3.1 > win32-msgbox version: 1. > >> then you should consider setting flonum-print-precision to 17, which will >> make an actual difference in rare >> cases. http://api.call-cc.org/doc/library/flonum-print-precision > > It doesn't seem to do any difference (in this case at least). Thanks, anyway. It can't be that hard to fix this problem. Are we just talking about adding a "0" in this case? I can look into this, Michele - if you can give me a hand in testing it, since I don't have a Windows system available in the moment. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
Hi Felix and folks, On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 22:11:28 +0200 (CEST) Felix wrote: > From: Michele La Monaca > Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 19:12:58 +0200 > >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote: >>> If you're really concerned about this (which is ultimately aesthetic) >> >> Is this acceptable? >> >> C:\TMP>chicken-status | tail -3 >> socket ... version: 0.2.3 >> srfi-37 .. version: 1.3.1 >> win32-msgbox version: 1. >> >>> then you should consider setting flonum-print-precision to 17, which will >>> make an actual difference in rare >>> cases. http://api.call-cc.org/doc/library/flonum-print-precision >> >> It doesn't seem to do any difference (in this case at least). Thanks, anyway. > > It can't be that hard to fix this problem. Are we just talking about adding a > "0" in this case? I can look into this, Michele - if you can give me a hand > in testing it, since I don't have a Windows system available in the moment. I think in that particular case the version in the .setup file should really be a string, which should fix that issue. If versions are represented by Scheme numbers, you always have to predetermine a range for minor versions a priori, otherwise you end up having, for example, a start version as 1.0, the next one 1.1 and so on, until you reach 1.10, which is numerically equivalent to 1.1. Maybe salmonella should issue a warning for version numbers which are not strings. Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Exact flownums not properly displayed in mingw
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Felix wrote: > It can't be that hard to fix this problem. Are we just talking about adding a > "0" in this case? I can look into this, Michele - if you can give me a hand > in testing it, since I don't have a Windows system available in the moment. Yes, sure. I would have done (tried to do) it myself but ubi maior... Thanks. Michele ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
