(= 4 4.0)

[Chris Hanson <cph@martigny.ai.mit.edu>]

   Date: Mon, 23 May 94 16:01:20 -0400
   From: Aubrey Jaffer <jaffer@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

   Close.  I already have an implementation with exact integers and
   inexact complexes.  My QUOTIENT, REMAINDER, MODULO, GCD, LCM, ODD?,
   and EVEN? don't accept inexact arguments.  I think if I make (= 4 4.0)
   ==> #f I will be much closer to conformance in this area.

   It is not easy to support them if arithmetic is not done with generic
   type dispatch.  My QUOTIENT, REMAINDER, MODULO, GCD, LCM, ODD?, and
   EVEN?  cannot coerce to exact integers if bignums are not available,
   so separate code would have to be written to support them.

A better way to do this would be to recognize that you have been given
an inexact integer and to signal an error.  This is explicitly allowed
and is closer to the intent of the report.

   (No, I don't think this shows the benefit of generic arithmetic.
   Computing GCD of inexacts makes as much sense to me as asking if an
   inexact is PRIME?)

Computing the GCD of inexact integers makes as much sense as computing
it for exact integers.  The purpose of the exactness bit is to
propagate information about how a given number was derived.  If these
integers were derived from inexact reals (say, as the result of FLOOR)
then it is appropriate for them to be inexact because the
implementation cannot prove that they are the correct integer.