Re: [Scheme-reports] Numerical example (real? -2.5+0.0i)

[Aubrey Jaffer <agj@x>]

 | Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 22:13:20 -0400
 | From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
 | 
 | John Cowan scripsit:
 | 
 | > That's reasonable: in fact, SCM doesn't support exact/exact
 | > complex numbers either, which is perfectly fine.  It just means
 | > that no general complex number can be real.

All real numbers are complex numbers.  This derives from their
mathematical definitions.

 | I've filed a ticket to add the R6RS `real-valued`,
 | `rational-valued`, and `integer-valued` procedures to R7RS: they
 | have the R5RS semantics around non-real numbers with inexact zero
 | imaginary parts, though R6RS doesn't explicitly say so.

Shouldn't the predicates REAL? and COMPLEX? implement the mathematical
semantics for which they are named?

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports