I ask because I'm tired of worrying about them. More precisely, I'm
tired of Typed Racket (rightly) making me worry about them.
I'm also a little bit tired of this:
(: foo (case-> (Single-Flonum -> Single-Flonum)
(Flonum -> Flonum)
(Real -> Real)))
(define (foo x)
Single-precision float support used to be enabled via a configure
option, which meant that some Racket installations would support them,
and some would not.
Since zo files are meant to be portable, they could not contain
single-precision floats. So, compilation would promote single literals
to dou
On Sep 12, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> Single-precision float support used to be enabled via a configure
> option, which meant that some Racket installations would support them,
> and some would not.
>
> Since zo files are meant to be portable, they could not contain
> single-pr
On 09/12/2012 10:24 AM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
I agree that having to handle single floats when reasoning about numbers
complicates things, and it annoys me too. But I still think it's less
problematic than what I describe above [compilation could change the behavior
> of a program].
Interesti
Two hours ago, Stephen Bloch wrote:
>
> Would it be even less problematic to get rid of them entirely,
> except in FFI?
(They're not really an issue for the FFI, since you'd just translate
the numbers to them when needed. IOW, racket doesn't even need
exact integers to have an FFI with them.)
-
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> Single-precision float support used to be enabled via a configure
> option, which meant that some Racket installations would support them,
> and some would not.
>
> Since zo files are meant to be portable, they could not contain
> single-
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> Compatibility with C code? Why not have the FFI convert them?
>
> Save space? I can see that. It won't help much if they're sent to math
> library functions, though. Those will convert them to flonums and usually
> box the converted values.
I
At Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:31:29 -0600, Neil Toronto wrote:
> Why do we have these things?
I'm not sure this reason from 1996 is still relevant, but FWIW:
Originally, there were drawing-related `float' computations in C code
that I wanted to replicate exactly in Racket (ok, MzScheme).
Eventually, I so
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:31:29 -0600, Neil Toronto wrote:
>> Why do we have these things?
>
> I'm not sure this reason from 1996 is still relevant, but FWIW:
> Originally, there were drawing-related `float' computations in C code
> that I wante
9 matches
Mail list logo
