Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> writes:

> John Cowan writes:
>
>> [big snip] there are 49 Schemes I've investigated on this point: 17
>> Schemes have both exact and inexact complex numbers, 8 have inexact
>> complex numbers only, 1 has exact complex numbers only, 23 have no
>> complex numbers.  I've counted plain Chicken and Chicken+numbers
>> separately for this purpose.
>
> I doubted the usefulness of exact complex numbers - wouldn't they be
> manipulated in ways that produce inexact results anyway - but then I
> realized/found out that they exist in number theory as "Gaussian
> integers" and "Gaussian rationals" and are of some interest as such.

I'm not sure if that's a convincing use-case.  Inexact quaternions would
arguably be more useful due to their use in 3D graphics, and I don't see
them getting mandated in the numeric tower.  It seems more reasonable to
put the limit on inexact complexes, if just due to existing adoption.
(FWIW I'm leaning towards voting no to all and asking them be optional
modules like everything else, as Peter Bex suggested.)

Taylan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scheme-reports-wg2" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scheme-reports-wg2+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.