Alex Shinn wrote:
One more thing - how was (expt 0 z) extended to
return 0 for complex z? The approaches I've tried
would result in NaN, and indeed this seems to be
what most implementations return.
You may be misinterpreting the R6RS. (expt 0 z) returns zero
if the real part of z is
Hi Will,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:08 AM, w...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Alex Shinn wrote:
One more thing - how was (expt 0 z) extended to
return 0 for complex z? The approaches I've tried
would result in NaN, and indeed this seems to be
what most implementations return.
You may be
Alex Shinn wrote:
The question has to do with non-real z with positive
real part, i.e. (expt 0.0 c+di), c 0, d != 0. As a
simplification I can see how it would be useful to
simply define this to be 0, but it can't be derived as
far as I can see from the definition of complex
From: w...@ccs.neu.edu
You may be misinterpreting the R6RS. (expt 0 z) returns zero
if the real part of z is positive. If z is zero, then it's
supposed to return zero.
From R6RS page 45:
0.0^z is 1.0 if z=0.0
You frightened me for a second.
Knuth says it's one. QED
-- Keith
Keith (r6rsguy) wrote:
From: w...@ccs.neu.edu
You may be misinterpreting the R6RS. (expt 0 z) returns zero
if the real part of z is positive. If z is zero, then it's
supposed to return zero.
From R6RS page 45:
0.0^z is 1.0 if z=0.0
You frightened me for a second.
My third
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:39 AM, w...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Although some implementors of the R6RS may have principled
reasons for implementing expt in non-conforming fashion, I
can't imagine what those reasons might be and I haven't heard
of any such reasons. I suspect you're talking about
One more thing - how was (expt 0 z) extended to
return 0 for complex z? The approaches I've tried
would result in NaN, and indeed this seems to be
what most implementations return.
--
Alex
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, w...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Alex Shinn wrote:
What I'm more interested
Alex Shinn wrote:
What I'm more interested in is the unusual behavior
that the result _either_ raises an exception _or_ returns
an unspecified number. I believe this is the only place
in any of the reports where the semantics is the disjunction
of signalling an error and an unspecified
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM, w...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Alex Shinn wrote:
What I'm more interested in is the unusual behavior
that the result _either_ raises an exception _or_ returns
an unspecified number. I believe this is the only place
in any of the reports where the semantics is the
