[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0
Mark H Weaver scripsit:
> This reversal poses onerous requirements on implementors, especially
> those who wish to support R6RS as well.
Indeed, the R6RS design put onerous requirements on those who wanted
to support both R5RS and R6RS, for this is not a place where R6RS
just tightened up vague R5RS language. It was a substantive change
that WG1 first decided to accept, and then changed its mind about.
> For example, this reversal means that (max 1.0+0.0i 1.0-0.0i) is
> permitted, and the result is no longer uniquely determined.
> What should the result be?
I'd say it's correct to return either one, since they are =.
Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield], John Cowan
one who looks with unconcern on a man http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
struggling for life in the water, and when cowan@x
he has reached ground encumbers him with help?
Scheme-reports mailing list