On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:48:58PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:

I haven't followed this discussion closely, so forgive me for being
completely unsure who is allowed to vote.  On the off chance voting
is open to anyone, here's my vote:

> 1) Should R7RS-large require arbitrarily large (up to implementation
> restrictions like memory) exact integers?

No.  I don't see a reason why it should.  Particular libraries within
R7RS large can require it where necessary.

> 2) Should R7RS-large require support for exact rational numbers?

No.  Same as above.

> 3) Should R7RS-large require support for exact complex numbers?

No.  The majority of Schemes don't even support this, AFAICT, so it's
not the report's place to suddenly start requiring it.  The report
should attempt to standardise things available "in the wild", and only
where nothing useful exists yet should it *cautiously* invent new things.

> 4) Should R7RS-large require inexact complex numbers?

No.  If compnums are required for a particular library in R7RS-large, it
may do so, but only for that library.

Cheers,
Peter
--
http://www.more-magic.net

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