Thanks again, Mark and Ludovic.
Attached is an updated patch.
thanks
--
Ramakrishnan
From a1dd2da8562ddeb2052f2994ad0302bcc8d5d1a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan vu3...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 23:22:52 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] Adding a case for `expt' when
Hi Ramakrishnan,
We're almost there, but you neglected one of the comments I made about
your previous patch.
+ /* If base is negative, expt needs to find -x^n = (-1^n) * (x^n).
+ We find x^n and then if n is odd, we also multiply the result
+ with -1. These changes apply
Ramakrishnan and others,
I just realized that there is a better way to fix these bugs. We don't
need a new top-level case in expt after all. Instead, we generalize the
scm_integer_expt case to support inexact integer exponents.
Within that case, if the exponent is an inexact integer, then we
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org wrote:
Hi Ramakrishnan,
We're almost there, but you neglected one of the comments I made about
your previous patch.
Sorry, I should pay more attention. :-(
Attaching the modified patch.
--
Ramakrishnan
From
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org wrote:
Ramakrishnan and others,
I just realized that there is a better way to fix these bugs. We don't
need a new top-level case in expt after all. Instead, we generalize the
scm_integer_expt case to support inexact integer
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan
vu3...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org wrote:
Ramakrishnan and others,
I just realized that there is a better way to fix these bugs. We don't
need a new top-level case in expt after
Hi Stefan,
Lots of stuff here, which is why I took the time to read it. :-)
Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com writes:
1. The theorem prover (leanCop) is a nice exercise
[...]
2. Kanren is a nice way to program like with prolog,
Great that you’re mentioning them. It looks
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
I just realized that there is a better way to fix these bugs. We don't
need a new top-level case in expt after all. Instead, we generalize the
scm_integer_expt case to support inexact integer exponents.
You mean “inexact number”, right?
The
Hello all,
Not to derail the thread of discussion, but I've had an idea for a
feature bouncing around that I think might hook into this. I think
that Guile should offer optional static checking - not just of types,
but of everything that we can check. It could be used partly for
optimization, but
