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

*To*: carlton@husc.harvard.edu*Subject*: four issues for R5RS meeting at Xerox PARC*From*: "Guillermo J. Rozas" <jinx@martigny.ai.mit.edu>*Date*: Mon, 18 May 92 10:21:52 -0400*Cc*: rrrs-authors@martigny.ai.mit.edu*In-Reply-To*: david carlton's message of Sun, 17 May 92 15:47:30 -0400 <9205171947.AA14735@husc10>*Reply-To*: jinx@martigny.ai.mit.edu

Satan: call-with-current-continuation Date: Sun, 17 May 92 15:47:30 -0400 From: david carlton <carlton@husc.harvard.edu> X-Mts: smtp On Sun, 17 May 92 14:24:59 -0400, Aubrey Jaffer <jaffer@martigny.ai.mit.edu> said: > <3> > Similarly, I would like the transcendental functions EXP, LOG, SIN, > COS, TAN, ASIN, ACOS, ATAN, MAKE-RECTANGULAR, MAKE-POLAR, and ANGLE > not be required to accept exact arguments. When I take SIN of an > exact number it is because I forgot to multiply it times pi. I would > appreciate Scheme catching this error for me. I expect this is true > in the vast majority of cases. EXACT->INEXACT is always availble for > the one in a million program which actually wants (SIN 1). I don't like this too much. I can imagine an exact 0 being the argument of a call to SIN, which I think should be allowed. Also, there's nothing that says that exact numbers can't include, say, multiples of pi; even though (as far as I know) no implementations currently do that, I wouldn't like to do things like the above which discourage their doing that. I agree.

**References**:**Re: four issues for R5RS meeting at Xerox PARC***From:*david carlton <carlton@husc.harvard.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**n-ary functions rfc** - Next by Date:
**Proposal for EVAL** - Prev by thread:
**Re: four issues for R5RS meeting at Xerox PARC** - Next by thread:
**Re: R5RS meeting at Xerox PARC** - Index(es):