On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:28:07PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:37:06PM -0300, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote: > > Well, that's supposed to be exactly the same thing, > > so why is it exact? Is this an optimization? > > It's a bug. There are many, many bugs in the current release > of the numbers egg. I'm working hard on a new release, which > should be done soonish. > > In the meanwhile, could you please use numbers trunk? It would > be very helpful to actually have users testing it before I make > yet another broken release :)
Yes, I've just installed it. > Quoting from another mail I posted to chicken-hackers yesterday: > "I know these fixes have been a long time coming, and I'm sorry that it's > taking so long, however I hope to tag a new "numbers" release soonish. > There have been many many bugs fixed in this new version, and it will > include (*limited*) support for extended number syntax in _compiled_ code. > > Along with this, it will include a types database to support > scrutiny/specialization so that at least for flonum operations things > will be as fast as core Chicken, and it will help to find bugs in code > much easier when compiling. Thanks to Felix for pushing me to support > this and developing the initial types database! That's great news! :-) Thanks for your explanation, and for pointing me to the svn trunk version of the egg! J. _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
