Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Peter Bex (12 Apr 2012 09:29 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alaric Snell-Pym (12 Apr 2012 11:00 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] sdfl exponent markers (was: Re: Boolean hemlines) John Cowan (12 Apr 2012 13:55 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Jeronimo Pellegrini (12 Apr 2012 11:18 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] sdfl exponent markers (was: Re: Boolean hemlines) John Cowan 12 Apr 2012 13:55 UTC

Peter Bex scripsit:

> That reminds me, has it already been proposed to remove the 'l'
> and also 's', 'd' and 'f' exponent markers?  Are there any Schemes
> in current use that actually distinguish between these markers?

They are now permitted but not required; that is, Schemes with only one
floating-point size (the vast majority) need not implement them.  So if
you have code out there that writes 1.0d0, it will not necessarily work
in R7RS Schemes any more (and already does not work in Chicken, I think).

--
Cash registers don't really add and subtract;           John Cowan
        they only grind their gears.                    cowan@ccil.org
But then they don't really grind their gears, either;
        they only obey the laws of physics.  --Unknown

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports