At Wed, 5 Jun 2019 19:41:19 -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 07:09:52AM -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > On a Racket variant that supports single-flonum values (like the
>
> > current version of Racket), the compiler will constant-fold that
>
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 07:09:52AM -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies about single-flonum uses!
>
> I've pushed the change to try out disabling single-flonum literals as
> of v7.3.0.5.
>
> Note that this change doesn't remove the concept of single-flonum
> values from the
Thanks for all the replies about single-flonum uses!
I've pushed the change to try out disabling single-flonum literals as
of v7.3.0.5.
Note that this change doesn't remove the concept of single-flonum
values from the language. It just removes single-flonum literals from
`#lang racket` and other
Matthew Flatt writes:
> At Thu, 30 May 2019 12:10:37 +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
>>
>> Right now, no, but I have used them briefly in a past project, for
>> testing the impact of single-precision on a numerical algorithm.
>
> Thanks for replying!
>
> Would using `math/bigfloat` (where you get
At Thu, 30 May 2019 08:06:33 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:03 AM Laurent wrote:
> > I suspect that if Matthew feels a need to ask about this, this means the
> price of backward compatibility to pay for all of us may be quite significant.
>
> Not one to put words in
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 9:03 AM Laurent wrote:
If no one is really relying on them as of today, then I would strongly support
allowing Matthew to break things and move fast. If anyone has a real need for
such a data structure it can still probably be implemented later as a
third-party
At Thu, 30 May 2019 12:10:37 +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> Am 29.05.19 um 17:52 schrieb Matthew Flatt:
>
> > Does anyone use single-flonums in Racket?
>
> Right now, no, but I have used them briefly in a past project, for
> testing the impact of single-precision on a numerical algorithm.
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:03 AM Laurent wrote:
> I suspect that if Matthew feels a need to ask about this, this means the
> price of backward compatibility to pay for all of us may be quite significant.
Not one to put words in Matthew's mouth, but I presume that he is
hopeful that no one is
If no one is really relying on them as of today, then I would strongly
support allowing Matthew to break things and move fast. If anyone has a
real need for such a data structure it can still probably be implemented
later as a third-party library, possibly extended to
user-specified-precision
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:10:37PM +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> Am 29.05.19 um 17:52 schrieb Matthew Flatt:
>
> > Does anyone use single-flonums in Racket?
>
> Right now, no, but I have used them briefly in a past project, for testing
> the impact of single-precision on a numerical algorithm.
>
Am 29.05.19 um 17:52 schrieb Matthew Flatt:
Does anyone use single-flonums in Racket?
Right now, no, but I have used them briefly in a past project, for
testing the impact of single-precision on a numerical algorithm.
The main reason to use single-precision floats nowadays is cutting
At Wed, 29 May 2019 12:33:24 -0400, George Neuner wrote:
> Question: does/will Chez support converting to/from 32-bit floats for C
> libraries?
Yes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
I support them in various packages, but I rarely use them, per se. Those
packages would have to be updated, but it wouldn't be a big deal for me.
Doug
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 9:52 AM Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Does anyone use single-flonums in Racket?
>
> I don't mean `_float` or `f32vector`s,
My guess is that no one uses them currently, because it's rare that
you'd want to trade speed for *im*precision. Single-flonums in Racket
are significantly slower than regular flonums, because they're not
treated as a common case. The only use I can think of, and the one that
inspired the
On 5/29/2019 11:52 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Does anyone use single-flonums in Racket?
I don't mean `_float` or `f32vector`s, which convert C `float`s or
32-bit array elements into regular double-precision Racket flonums. I
mean literals like `3.0f0` or functions like `real->single-flonum`,
Does anyone use single-flonums in Racket?
I don't mean `_float` or `f32vector`s, which convert C `float`s or
32-bit array elements into regular double-precision Racket flonums. I
mean literals like `3.0f0` or functions like `real->single-flonum`,
which produce a Racket number that uses only 32
16 matches
Mail list logo
