[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Padding/placeholders (hashes) in numerical syntax
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 11:28:46 -0400, Peter Bex <Peter.Bex@x> wrote:
> Outputs of other Schemes would be interesting to see as well, and
> suggestions for new testcases are welcome too!
I have attached the results for Chez Scheme 8.3 (R6RS). I had to make some
basic modifications to the prelude, but I also had to change the test in
the macro (and res (nan? res) ...) to (and (real? res) (nan? res) ...)
because Chez Scheme's NAN? only accepts REAL? values.
There were 18 errors in total, all of them, as far as I can see, relating
to accepting prefix based numbers that the test says should error out. I'm
not sure I would argue that this is a bad thing.
> As you can see from the outputs, the "errors" in these Schemes are mostly
> related to padding syntax, and especially such gems like "#x1#+1#i" or
> "#e1#/2". Surprisingly, there's also lots of errors related to allowing
> the decimal syntax for bases other than 10 (especially in Racket).
Chez doesn't appear to have any errors related to the padding, but it does
exhibit the same flexibility that Racket has regarding these decimal
Aaron W. Hsu
Programming is just another word for the lost Art of Thinking.
Scheme-reports mailing list