[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Numerical example (real? -2.5+0.0i)
| 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
| 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