| Hi, here are my votes. I'm putting these questions for discussion and vote by R7RS-large WG I'm using the reformulated numeric tower ballot text from the WG2 list, which I think is better (I found the requirement of IEEE 64-bit pairs for inexact complex numbers to be hard to give a thoughtful vote on):
Rationale: I think R7RS-large should aim high for numerical computation that is portable across implementations. When voting yes for (1), I find it logical for an implementation to support (2) and (3) as well, as they could be implemented in terms of (1). The same goes for (4): If an implementation supports inexact numbers, I would surely expect it to support inexact complex numbers also, even if they may not be used often. Looking at it seems that R6RS requires the full numeric tower, but only exactness for integers and rationals. That would mean an all-yes vote here should be backwards-compatible with it, no? -- Christian Stigen Larsen |
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports