John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
The R7RS-large committee is trying to sort out what R6RS Section 3.4
means by its first two sentences:
Implementations of Scheme must support number objects for
the entire tower of subtypes given in section 3.1. Moreover,
Michael Sperber scripsit:
As far as I can see, the paragraph does not say anything about
non-real numbers.
Not specifically, no. But presumably they are included in the requirement
to provide a tower; that is, a system that provides only real numbers
(and raises an exception of type
John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org writes:
If an implementation may restrict the range of inexact numbers, it seems
to me that technically it may restrict the range to no inexact numbers
whatsoever.
Is that conformant? If not, is it technically conformant to have just
one inexact number,
Michael Sperber scripsit:
I don't recall the inexact argument.
:-)
I didn't consciously change anything in R6RS that might make it
different from R5RS.
Except to require arbitrarily large exact rationals (and a fortiori
integers, though integers are particularly mentioned).
However, I did
The R7RS-large committee is trying to sort out what R6RS Section 3.4
means by its first two sentences:
Implementations of Scheme must support number objects for
the entire tower of subtypes given in section 3.1. Moreover,
implementations must support exact integer objects and exact
