[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Padding/placeholders (hashes) in numerical syntax
Peter Bex scripsit:
> Later I was told that this might be reconsidered if it was shown to be
> really difficult to implement.
It's on the ballot now, and so far there are 4 votes in favor to 0
against to remove it. We won't be sure for a week or so, though.
> The latest version of this test can be found here:
I picked up version 24935.
> Outputs of other Schemes would be interesting to see as well, and
> suggestions for new testcases are welcome too!
I ran tests against Bigloo, Chez, Chibi, Ikarus, IronScheme, Kawa,
Larceny, Mosh, SCM, SISC, STklos, Ypsilon on a 32-bit Linux
system. I tried Scheme 9, but it fails on the syntax-rules
declaration. The modified scripts and results are at
Here's what I got:
Bigloo: No complex or rational numbers. 45 errors.
Chez: All features. 18 errors.
Chibi: All features. 92 errors.
Ikarus: No complex numbers. 34 errors.
IronScheme: All features. Lexical scanner gets terminally confused.
Kawa: Internal error attempting to compile (Kawa has no interpreter).
Larceny: All features. Nan? needs replacement. 10 errors.
Mosh: All features. Lexical scanner gets terminally confused.
SCM: Inexact complex numbers only. Test "+nan.0+nan.0i" blows up with
"Wrong type passed to make-rectangular: 0/0" error. When this is
commented out, 28 errors.
SISC: All features. Had to comment out Fractions section due to
internal errors. 43 errors.
STklos: All features. Tests involving fractions whose numerators or
denominators are inexact blow up with "string->number: cannot make
rational" error. When these are commented out, 19 errors.
Ypsilon: Nan? needs replacement. 28 errors.
The phrase "Nan? needs replacement" refers to the fact that in R6RS-only
systems, nan? accepts real numbers only and cannot be redefined (because
it is imported from the base module). I therefore changed "nan?" to
"my-nan?" in the script files for those systems.
In R6RS-only systems, "nan?" does not accept a complex number and
cannot be redefined (because it's imported from a module), so I changed
references to "nan?" to "my-nan?" for those systems.
> Personally, I'd also vote against the R6RS "123|45" notation
WG1 voted not to include it; that vote is not being reconsidered.
> One final question: Why was the +nan.0 syntax copied from R6RS but not
> the -nan.0 syntax? I think it makes sense to allow -nan.0 as well.
It was an oversight. Ticket filed.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@x
Please leave your values Check your assumptions. In fact,
at the front desk. check your assumptions at the door.
--sign in Paris hotel --Cordelia Vorkosigan
Scheme-reports mailing list