> On 26 Oct 2024, at 19:22, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > (Cc: lloda.) > > Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> skribis: > >> The specification mandates reals, but the reference implementation >> supports complex numbers. So as implementation extension, support them >> as well. >> >> * module/srfi/srfi-64.scm (within-epsilon): Support complex arguments. >> --- >> Proposal for how to extend test-approximate to handle complex arguments. >> However it differs from the original one. That one expected `error' to be a >> real number, and used it for comparing both real parts and imaginary parts. >> >> To me, that seems weird. I would consider it useful to be able to have >> different errors for real and imaginary parts. >> >> However I cannot remember the last time I have used complex numbers, so I am >> not >> sure I am qualified to have an opinion here. What do other people think? > > Not sure either. Daniel, is that what you would expect? > > Perhaps we should check the reference implementation? > > Ludo’.
Sorry, I didn't notice this. I replied on another message, but to be clear, the expected error should always be a real number, no matter what you're comparing. If one wants to have separate errors for real and imaginary parts, then one can simply use test-approximate on the real and imaginary parts separately. Regards Daniel
