3. Can you explain the issue again, using smaller words? (I think I understand the first example, but then I'm lost.)
Robby On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > 1. What's the computational cost of such changes? > > 2. What is the impact on TR? 3. > > > On Jun 30, 2012, at 9:15 PM, Neil Toronto wrote: > >> I've noticed something interesting about the `log' function. Check out this >> interaction: >> >> > (real->double-flonum #e1e400) >> +inf.0 >> > (log #e1e400) >> 921.0340371976183 >> >> It's obviously not just converting to flonum first; it's likely doing some >> kind of argument reduction internally. >> >> `sqrt' operates on superfloat numbers when they're perfect squares, and >> `sin' doesn't at all: >> >> > (sqrt #e1e400) >> [1e200 written out] >> > (sqrt #e1e401) >> +inf.0 >> > (sin #e1e400) >> +nan.0 >> >> I have two questions: >> >> 1. I think I have the Mad Skillz to make these work by wrapping the >> primitives with something that does argument reduction. Should I? (It should >> be especially interesting to do `sin', requiring an arbitrary-precision `pi' >> constant. Woo!) >> >> 2. Under what circumstances should sublinear `math' library functions do >> this? All of them? >> >> Neil ⊥ >> _________________________ >> Racket Developers list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
