real-part frac

real-part frac

[Kevin Ryde]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 237 bytes --]

Is there a reason for real-part to return a flonum when given a
fraction?  Eg. (real-part 1/2) => 0.5.

With exact fractions I might have expected to get back the fraction
unchanged, the same way an exact integer is returned unchanged.


[-- Attachment #2: numbers.c.real-frac.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 388 bytes --]

--- numbers.c.~1.215.~	1970-01-01 10:00:01.000000000 +1000
+++ numbers.c	2003-11-21 16:43:46.000000000 +1000
@@ -4972,7 +4972,7 @@
   else if (SCM_COMPLEXP (z))
     return scm_make_real (SCM_COMPLEX_REAL (z));
   else if (SCM_FRACTIONP (z))
-    return scm_make_real (scm_i_fraction2double (z));
+    return z;
   else
     SCM_WTA_DISPATCH_1 (g_real_part, z, SCM_ARG1, s_real_part);
 }

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: real-part frac

[Marius Vollmer]

Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:

> Is there a reason for real-part to return a flonum when given a
> fraction?

No, please apply your patch.  Thanks!

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel