[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>*Subject*: Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0*From*: John Cowan <cowan@x>*Date*: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:10:32 -0500*Cc*: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>*In-reply-to*: <87bodu4r0r.fsf@tines.lan>*References*: <CAMMPzYOKcOm+trYA0Fc+NtWfG00K0BM4hvghsxrr6L9wnCyhuQ@mail.gmail.com> <87d2yf80q3.fsf@tines.lan> <20121214223854.GX29857@mercury.ccil.org> <CAGUt3y55KEVFn=6_i9yRXR8w_e8Nk2tN7QGCF8rEhYTs2Xgrjw@mail.gmail.com> <878v8z5iq8.fsf@tines.lan> <874njn5b65.fsf@tines.lan> <20121215204015.GG13463@mercury.ccil.org> <87obhv3ts0.fsf@tines.lan> <20121215231548.GC10312@mercury.ccil.org> <87bodu4r0r.fsf@tines.lan>

Mark H Weaver scripsit: > There are several other ways of checking for this, such as: > > (eqv? 1.0+0.0i 1.0+0i) > > and > > (eqv? (make-rectangular 1.0 0.0) > (make-rectangular 1.0 0)) Those are also consistent with (make-rectangular x 0) simply returning a flonum. > For the three implementations I mentioned (Guile 2, Racket, and Ikarus) > the expressions above return #f. I tried the 45 Schemes (less those with no make-rectangular support) with this expression: (let ((m (make-rectangular 2.0 2)) (z (make-rectangular 2.0 0))) (list m z (real? m) (real? z))) All the Schemes, except those which don't support make-rectangular, replied either (2.0+2i 2.0 #f #t) or (2.0+2.0i 2.0 #f #t), which is consistent with all implementations not even returning a rectnum or compnum for z, but a simple flonum. This is quite independent of how eqv? behaves. This behavior is required by ANSI CL, function COMPLEX. -- John Cowan cowan@x http://ccil.org/~cowan Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**References**:**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Sascha Ziemann <ceving@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Next by Date:
**[Scheme-reports] Tracking change in the Scheme reports** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Index(es):