On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:39 AM, <w...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > Although some implementors of the R6RS may have principled > reasons for implementing expt in non-conforming fashion, I > can't imagine what those reasons might be and I haven't heard > of any such reasons. I suspect you're talking about mere > bugs in those existing implementations of the R6RS. > > I could list a great many bugs that I've found in existing > implementations of R6RS arithmetic. Could you explain why > you want to discuss these particular bugs?
I'm following up on a complaint on the scheme-reports public discussion list. The R7RS formal comments period is over, but we're still getting a trickle of informal comments. When comparing implementations I'm also looking at R5RS implementations. However in the absence of either a mathematical basis or rough consensus among implementations, I'm hard-pressed to defend this change. -- Alex _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
