[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Before I make another proposal on number syntax, I'd like some
feedback on current practice.
Has anyone implemented exactness using a mechanism substantially
different from the one Kent Dybvig describes in his new book?
(Quoting his page 111: "In practice, the internal representation for
an exact quantity is as an integer or ratio, and the internal
representation for an inexact quantity is as a floating point number,
although other representations are possible." Also, "The exactness of
a complex numeric object depends on the exactness of its real and
imaginary parts.") How do people feel about this approach? Does this
fulfill the spirit of exactness? Does anyone want to pay for a more
orthogonal exactness attribute for numbers?
Is it permissible for an exact 3.5 to print (by default) as 7/2 or an
inexact 2 to print as 2.0?
Has anyone implemented the -1+2i or 5@7 syntax for complex numbers?
Is there strong resistance to Common Lisp's #c(-1 2) representation?
In general, is there anyone strongly opposed to the idea that Scheme
number representations should be made to look more like Common Lisp's?