On 4/27/07, Alan Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > > Then again, doubles aren't a group either because of this > > imprecision, and I'm suggesting claiming they're > > a subclass of that, so maybe there's room in a practical > > language to make them a subclass of the rationals too. > > Would using language from the Scheme report be useful when > discussing this? > http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/projects/scheme/documentation/scheme_5.html
Very much so. Thanks for sending the link. I'm not going to get a chance to update the document for the next several days, so if you want to put together a patch using such language, I'd be happy to see it go in. Or I'll integrate those ideas once I have a bit more spare time. It looks like the primary ideas there are that it was worthwhile for Scheme to have the full Number:>Complex:>Real:>Rational:>Integer tower, and that it wasn't worthwhile to duplicate it entirely for the exact/inexact distinction. Thanks, Jeffrey _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
