Thanks, John.
--- On Fri, 6/3/11, Peter Bex wrote:
> From: Peter Bex
> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Different factorial results
> To: "John Cowan"
> Cc: "Steve Graham" , "Chicken-users"
>
> Date: Friday, June 3, 2011, 1:06 PM
> On Fri, J
Hallo,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Peter Bex wrote:
>
> It's not in core mostly because it would make things slower (though I'm
> not 100% convinced of that; there's type dispatching for fixnums/flonums
> already anyway) and because it is an extra-large additional pile of code.
>
Indeed
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 12:49:26PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Steve Graham scripsit:
>
> > Thanks, Mario. Worked like a charm. Why is that not part of the base
> > package?
>
> Licensing. The numbers egg has to be GPL, because it depends on the GMP
> (GNU Multi-precision Library) which is GPL.
Hi John,
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 12:49:26 -0400 John Cowan wrote:
> Steve Graham scripsit:
>
>> Thanks, Mario. Worked like a charm. Why is that not part of the base
>> package?
>
> Licensing. The numbers egg has to be GPL, because it depends on the GMP
> (GNU Multi-precision Library) which is GPL.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:49 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Steve Graham scripsit:
>
>> Thanks, Mario. Worked like a charm. Why is that not part of the base
>> package?
>
> Licensing. The numbers egg has to be GPL, because it depends on the GMP
> (GNU Multi-precision Library) which is GPL.
numbers is
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:49 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Steve Graham scripsit:
Thanks, Mario. Worked like a charm. Why is that not part of the
base
package?
Licensing. The numbers egg has to be GPL, because it depends on the
GMP
(GNU Multi-precision Library) which is GPL. The overall license
Steve Graham scripsit:
> Thanks, Mario. Worked like a charm. Why is that not part of the base
> package?
Licensing. The numbers egg has to be GPL, because it depends on the GMP
(GNU Multi-precision Library) which is GPL. The overall license for
Chicken, however, is BSD. There are alternative
gt; From: Mario Domenech Goulart
> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Different factorial results
> To: "Steve Graham"
> Cc: "Chicken-users"
> Date: Friday, June 3, 2011, 10:36 AM
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Steve Graham
> wro
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Steve Graham
wrote:
> In running (factorial 50)
>
> (define (factorial n) (if (< n 2) 1 (* n (factorial (- n 1)
>
> I found that Chicken Scheme's result differed from Petite Chez, Kawa and
> Gambit. The former gave
>
> 3.04140932017134e+06
In running (factorial 50)
(define (factorial n) (if (< n 2) 1 (* n (factorial (- n 1)
I found that Chicken Scheme's result differed from Petite Chez, Kawa and
Gambit. The former gave
3.04140932017134e+064
and the latter 3 gave
30414093201713378043612608166064768844377641568960512
10 matches
Mail list logo
