On 2012-01-12, at 17:25, John Cowan wrote: > Vincent Manis scripsit: > >> How about `Rational operations such as + should always produce exact >> results where possible when given exact arguments'? > > On reflection, I think the definition of SHOULD does cover this. > "There may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances [for an > implementation] to ignore a particular item", namely that it does not > allow arbitrarily large exact numbers.
It doesn't feel like it covers it to me; that sentence and the next seem contradictory (it's an apparent, not a real, contradiction). But the animal cruelty people have been on at me about flogging dead horses :) -- vincent _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
