2008/8/11 Bill Schottstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> guile> (< 1.0+1.0i)
> #t
> guile> (< 2.0 1.0+1.0i)
>
> Backtrace:
> In standard input:
> 2: 0* [< 2.0 {1.0+1.0i}]
>
> standard input:2:1: In procedure < in expression (< 2.0 1.0+1.0i):
> standard input:2:1: Wrong type: 1.0+1.0i
> ABORT: (wrong-type-arg)
My guess (without actually looking at the code) is that
- using < etc with complex numbers will always give a wrong type arg error
- the single arg case is being optimized before reaching the check for
a complex number.
What behaviour would you prefer? (Perhaps to say that < etc. only
compare the real parts of the provided numbers? Is there any
precedent for that in other Schemes or standards?)
Neil
