| Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 22:13:20 -0400 | From: John Cowan <[email protected]> | | John Cowan scripsit: | | > That's reasonable: in fact, SCM doesn't support exact/exact | > complex numbers either, which is perfectly fine. It just means | > that no general complex number can be real.
All real numbers are complex numbers. This derives from their mathematical definitions. | I've filed a ticket to add the R6RS `real-valued`, | `rational-valued`, and `integer-valued` procedures to R7RS: they | have the R5RS semantics around non-real numbers with inexact zero | imaginary parts, though R6RS doesn't explicitly say so. Shouldn't the predicates REAL? and COMPLEX? implement the mathematical semantics for which they are named? _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
