From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] First batch of numerics changes Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:48:58 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87lj2762xc.fsf@yeeloong.netris.org> <87tygv4726.fsf@yeeloong.netris.org> <87wrlo2k9z.fsf@yeeloong.netris.org> <87k4hn31ii.fsf@yeeloong.netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1296391064 7282 80.91.229.12 (30 Jan 2011 12:37:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:37:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 30 13:37:40 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PjWXD-0008WD-Qn for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:37:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60915 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PjWXD-00034J-3u for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:37:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50277 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PjWWv-0002ul-MT for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:37:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PjWWu-0002eE-9d for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:37:21 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:57119 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PjWWu-0002e2-5a for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:37:20 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF8032E8; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:38:11 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Kh3T9UMhr4LdwRWJICY4KAUtSHY=; b=lRBI7x /4ZGivdyzz4zLESekpwm0ule0CWY+tneZNC3ZV454jlFkZIG3OYj2cj2HUyjXdyq kPfxM2MKI276+4zDgfNPXOyOeAvw3A0UETnM9Z0nut1UgPrYC478BUYAT9fNKFZq MQ0z6+PaoKYnj/se3Cx81r6xzeTFDvRkue4qg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=tImhlq2UmoI4bep/ZHBI4ZUAy6sU/Kj9 1M7VxPEtPSc9yZXgoJNVk1z0Vw9rPBuEW4EWQGlkciBv6rK9oEtiVzUXHjUu+7qA 80oMNEIY1CMgvHgLr9BTZXQl24EsiVB0Mq9grsiY6YPG9kfscVtVWQE0Tl/ZwIyx ne+VpjV53RU= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76D732E3; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:38:10 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0DCBA32E1; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:38:08 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87k4hn31ii.fsf@yeeloong.netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:20:37 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CBFC5494-2C6D-11E0-A3D2-BC4EF3E828EC-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11423 Archived-At: On Sat 29 Jan 2011 21:20, Mark H Weaver writes: > Andy Wingo writes: >>> if (SCM_CELL_TYPE (x) != SCM_CELL_TYPE (y)) >>> + return SCM_BOOL_F; >> >> Doesn't this prevent 1.0+0.0i from being eqv or equal to 1.0 ? > > No, because 1.0+0.0i never exists in the current code. Ah, so we don't have any back-compatibility to preserve here; cool. > it follows that any complex number, even one with an inexact zero > imaginary part, must be unequal to _any_ real number. I can't presume to have a deep understanding of math, but I do interpret the R6RS as supporting your arguments, so no problem. Thanks for humoring me with an explanation :) Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/