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 w
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 wr
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 thi
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
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
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 ...
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
wr
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
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
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
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,
t
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.no
12 matches
Mail list logo
