Re: [Scheme-reports] numeric tower

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Bill Schottstaedt scripsit:

> 3) Should R7RS-large require support for exact complex numbers? 
> 
> No.  This strikes me as ridiculous.
> (make-polar 1 1) -> 0.5403023058681398+0.8414709848078965i.

Make-polar is not required to return exact results on exact arguments.  In
R7RS-small, make-rectangular isn't required to either: (make-rectangular 1 2)
can return 1+2i, or return 1.0+2.0i, or report an implementation
restriction.  The intention of #3 is to determine whether in *large*
implementations, the first result is required.  There's no intention to
require make-polar to return exact results.

> 4) Should R7RS-large require inexact complex numbers, to consist of 
> pairs of 64-bit IEEE binary floats? 

I need to reformulate the ballot to eliminate talk of IEEE in this
question.  I'll send that out in a moment.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@x
Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield], one who looks with unconcern
on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground
encumbers him with help?        --Samuel Johnson

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