Vincent Manis scripsit: > The only other thing might be error handling. Since I don't have much > of an idea what WG1's error handling will look like, other than that > error will be provided, it's not clear to me whether this is an issue.
Neither do we yet. The leading candidates are the R6RS exception (not condition) system and nothing. > I intended to rule out --++, but did want to keep --+-. Or did I > misunderstand your comment? Sorry, I meant +x-x, bignums without flonums. > I withdraw my request for numeric-features, I had forgotten (or not > known) that WG1 intends to include cond-expand. I proposed it, but it's not accepted yet. > Decimal floating-point also might bring back issues about multiple > precisions, which I believe WG1 has decided not to support, though I > don't know about WG2. I don't feel that's a big deal, though. What we've decided to drop is the requirement for nnn.nn[SFDL]nnn whether you support multiple precisions or not. Multiple precisions are still permitted, though only a few Schemes support them. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan In computer science, we stand on each other's feet. --Brian K. Reid _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
