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] Complex numbers with inexact zero imaginary part, etc Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:30:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87zkqeu19q.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 1296678367 27948 80.91.229.12 (2 Feb 2011 20:26:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 20:26:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 02 21:26:03 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 1PkjH3-0006Uw-C2 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:25:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35620 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PkjH2-0006CL-Pn for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:25:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37320 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PkjGq-00067g-OF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:25:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkjGk-00089d-AE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:25:44 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:63667 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PkjGk-00089Z-4D for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:25:38 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AAD35F3; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:26:31 -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=Kg/jQqeBQuvPproZQWZeguNQFBY=; b=qHxo49 wrhbIvfFCBgynKWkUXg2sv7/dwBN0MGv5u2XbJoLAvDb8CDicTTarycDwR8E0Gkg LDA4VPjzS8cqwVn506smmoDdsEo2tEqSBtv4MiT3BGmBmnjsRnWjMnWB48zd54Hv B+sZnPh9YyK50b/Y4XATj3POXITYQfye5OGcs= 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=uI46kWGU7ILBPp7TFZYhk8ATiJVEI05T pYvKDQo25bJ3dmUxAJdRupvO7xhMbQwZVk5XpNTd6UlJBizd88c1vmDowKg6Y6Ht 5OfpgrcWZgaA3LiqZ0LIpZf2J6HiOpd2MGZiiwDnKAVEB7Xsr2JWJsIZ25Cj345l rnGU+ryXVzg= 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 7AC6335F2; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:26:30 -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 C140835ED; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:26:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87zkqeu19q.fsf@yeeloong.netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2011 06:25:05 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B8044B00-2F0A-11E0-AA34-F13235C70CBC-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:11519 Archived-At: Hi, I just sent a mail I didn't mean to send, I said: On Wed 02 Feb 2011 12:25, Mark H Weaver writes: > * libguile/numbers.c (scm_abs): (abs -0.0) now returns 0.0. > Previously it returned -0.0. I questioned this, but I think it's pretty fine, obviously; I meant to ask about: > (scm_difference): (- 0 0.0) now returns -0.0. Previously it returned > 0.0. Also make sure that (- 0 0.0+0.0i) will return -0.0-0.0i. Is this right? I can convince myself both ways. Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/