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

Re: [Scheme-reports] Reformulated numeric-tower ballot

Here's my vote:

> 1) Should R7RS-large require arbitrarily large (up to implementation 
> restrictions like memory) exact integers?                            

Yes.  Having them available makes it possible to program with exact
integers without fear of overflow to inexactness or an implementation
restriction.  They can be implemented in Scheme, but cannot be plugged
into Scheme's generic arithmetic easily.

> 2) Should R7RS-large require support for exact rational numbers?

Yes.  Same rationale as #1.

> 3) Should R7RS-large require support for exact complex numbers?

No.  The use case for these is not well demonstrated, and many existing
largish Schemes don't provide them (but provide inexact complex

> 4) Should R7RS-large require inexact complex numbers?

Yes.  They are not needed for most programs, but they cost little
for people who don't care.  If they are not wanted altogether (real
arithmetic only), it's easily to provide a flonum-only library.  See
also the rationale for #1.

John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@x
We want more school houses and less jails; more books and less arsenals;
more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more
leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of
the opportunities to cultivate our better natures.  --Samuel Gompers

Scheme-reports mailing list