Re: [Scheme-reports] Numeric towers

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Vincent Manis scripsit:

> The only other thing might be error handling. Since I don't have much
> of an idea what WG1's error handling will look like, other than that
> error will be provided, it's not clear to me whether this is an issue.

Neither do we yet.  The leading candidates are the R6RS exception (not
condition) system and nothing.

> I intended to rule out --++, but did want to keep --+-. Or did I
> misunderstand your comment?

Sorry, I meant +x-x, bignums without flonums.

> I withdraw my request for numeric-features, I had forgotten (or not
> known) that WG1 intends to include cond-expand.

I proposed it, but it's not accepted yet.

> Decimal floating-point also might bring back issues about multiple
> precisions, which I believe WG1 has decided not to support, though I
> don't know about WG2. I don't feel that's a big deal, though.

What we've decided to drop is the requirement for nnn.nn[SFDL]nnn whether
you support multiple precisions or not.  Multiple precisions are still
permitted, though only a few Schemes support them.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@x  http://ccil.org/~cowan
In computer science, we stand on each other's feet.
        --Brian K. Reid

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports