At Thu, 30 May 2019 08:06:33 -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:03 AM Laurent <laurent.ors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I suspect that if Matthew feels a need to ask about this, this means the > price of backward compatibility to pay for all of us may be quite significant. > > Not one to put words in Matthew's mouth, but I presume that he is > hopeful that no one is actually using them in an important way in > their work or he wouldn't have asked.
Based on the feedback so far, it sounds like single-flonums are a little useful on rare occasions, but they're not needed for portable packages. Instead of removing single-flonum support entirely, I'm considering a slightly less drastic change. We could add a reader parameter that controls whether literals are ever read as single-flonums. When the parameter is off, numbers like "3.0f0" would read as regular flonums. The parameter would be off by default, so "3.0f0" would be a normal flonum in a `#lang racket` module. If the new parameter is turned on and the reader encounters a single-flonum under Racket CS, it will raise an exception. Also, Racket CS will always raise an exception for `real->single-flonum` or when reading `racket/fasl`-encoded data that contains a single-flonum. In terms of backward compatibility, this alternative is no better than just removing single-flonums. But it keeps single-flonum functionality available in the current Racket implementation through modest effort. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/5ceffa2d.1c69fb81.f8e2c.3dc6SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
