I agree with Kent here. I don't think backwards compatibility on `div` is
important (yet).
One extremely minor point: although the Definition of Standard ML only
provides `div` and `mod` (for flooring division), Standard ML of New Jersey
also provides `quot` and `rem` (for truncating). The
> I am willing to change `div`
> to `quo` and `dvf` to `div` if there is consensus.
I like the new naming better, BUT this is a change that is not
backwards compatible. Are we worrying about such things yet?
Or is still possible to make them without the wrath of the masses?
-- Lennart
I gather the change you propose makes `div` consistent with
SML and Miranda, and uses `quo` for what Scheme calls `quotient`.
Sounds good to me. -- P
Folks,
Kent has pointed out to me that the Haskell's use of `div` for truncating,
as opposed to flooring, division is incompatible with both SML and
Miranda, whereas neither Scheme nor Common Lisp have a function by
that name. (Scheme calls it "quotient".) I am willing to change `div`
to `quo`
Folks,
There was a small omission in the Integral declaration I just sent;
the first line should be
class (Real a, Ix a) => Integral a where
Similarly, the Real declaration begins
class (Num a, Enum a) => Real a where
This is from Mikael Rittri's proposal.
--Joe
Folks,
Here is my decision about `div` and friends: I've decided to back off
from the proposal to incorporate Common Lisp's capabilities, since it's
probably just too much stuff to consider in such a short timeframe.
(I also suspect that the Scheme designers correctly decided that the
CL stuff w
