This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
telford@triangle.triode.net.au writes: > Still, you have to set the standard somewhere. Possibly > it would be nice to have an option to generate warnings about > numbers that look a bit too simiar to symbols (e.g. '-i) > and symbols that look a bit too similar to numbers (e.g. '4i+3), > maybe it is just a matter of getting familiar with the > tricks and traps of the language. > Actually, the standard says that identifiers cannot begin with a character that can begin a number, but obviously Guile has extended the range of allowed identifiers. > BTW: I also agree that command line processing should be > completely done by strings, keep symbols right out of it. > Well, if anyone still wants to use a symbol, in Guile you can represent the symbol withthe name -i with '#{-i}#. > On the issue of (eq?), I find it strange that R4RS deliberately > says that using (eq?) between two numbers produces an unspecified > result depending in implementation. At least guile is in line > with the standard there because two integers are correctly > compared by (eq?) but two identical floats are not. I don't follow > the note that it may not be possible to compare two numbers in > finite time... does scheme support numerical formats that I > don't understand? > The goal is for eq? to be computable in constant time, I think. In particular, it's supposed to be easy to implement it as a simple pointer comparison. Note that Guile is therefore only likely to be able to compare small integers with eq? successfully. - Maciej