Re: [Scheme-reports] Padding/placeholders (hashes) in numerical syntax

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Peter Bex scripsit:

> While we're on the topic of numerical stuff in the standard, I'd like
> to ask why the "padding"/placeholder digits for numbers (# characters
> instead of digits inside a number) is kept around.

I agree that it's bogus.  The ballot question asked about the #s from R5RS and
the mantissa-width specifier (|nnn) from R6RS: the first, the second, neither,
or both.  The vote was inconclusive, so the R5RS status quo was kept.

> I think there's also a bug in the R7RS BNF for numbers; it doesn't seem
> to allow for a complex number consisting of a real and imaginary
> component which are infinite.  AFAICT, only an <ureal> can follow the
> sign after the first number in the rectangular format.
> Several Schemes I've tested this with simply allow "+inf.0+inf.0i" for
> this.  The R6RS BNF seems to allow it, though (it's handled specially).

Already fixed on trunk.

-- 
You know, you haven't stopped talking           John Cowan
since I came here. You must have been           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
vaccinated with a phonograph needle.            cowan@x
        --Rufus T. Firefly

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