Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0

[Sascha Ziemann <ceving@x>]

2012/12/15 John Cowan <cowan@x>:
> Sascha Ziemann scripsit:
>> 2012/12/14 John Cowan <cowan@x>:
>> >> For example, this reversal means that (max 1.0+0.0i 1.0-0.0i) is
>> >> permitted, and the result is no longer uniquely determined.
>> >> What should the result be?
>> >
>> > I'd say it's correct to return either one, since they are =.
>>
>> Wolfram thinks it is neither the first nor the second:
>>
>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=max+%281.0%2B0.0i%2C+1.0-0.0i%29
>
> Wolfram, like Common Lisp, takes a structural view of complex numbers:
> a number is complex just in case it has an imaginary part.

What is the benefit not following Wolfram and CL?

Sascha

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