[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Padding/placeholders (hashes) in numerical syntax
| Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 16:59:18 -0400
| From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
| 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
| http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/temp/strconv-results.zip .
| Here's what I got:
| 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.
Making string->number case insensitive for infinities and nans
this to 19 "ERROR"s. Seven of these are "SERIALIZATION ERROR"s due to
SCM using engineering notation for numbers greater than 1000. or less
than -1000, or between -1 and 1. I believe that R5RS permits
(define (nan? x) (and (number? x) (not (complex? x)))) ; SCM
Scheme-reports mailing list