On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:03:41AM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: > What was the final word on this? Is it a real issue on some platforms?
Probably. I will look into it when time allows. > Anyhow, I found this whole exercise pretty interesting and played with > it a bit more and observed a couple curious things: > > 2. Taking the inverse exponent (i.e. result^(1/n) ) runs into trouble > at n=144. Anyone care to explain why that is and is there a numerical > methods trick to work around it? You divide the inexact 1.0 by the number. Try doing an exact division like (/ 1 n) or just (/ n). This will produce a rational number which is exact and not limited in any way. > 3. Why do guile, scm and STk put out +inf.0 and chicken puts out +inf > (gauche gives #i1/0)? My hazy understanding is that +inf.0 is not the > same as +inf. I think it's the same. Only flonums can be +inf and hence the .0 is superfluous. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
