Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> writes: > At Thu, 30 May 2019 12:10:37 +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote: >> >> Right now, no, but I have used them briefly in a past project, for >> testing the impact of single-precision on a numerical algorithm. > > Thanks for replying! > > Would using `math/bigfloat` (where you get to pick the precision) have > worked in that case? In a small example, I imagine you could import > `math/bigfloat` and strip the `bf` prefix using `filtered-in` to > replace the usual arithmetic operations with bigfloat variants. But I > expect that would become painful in a larger example, especially if > multiple modules are involved.
Right. Yes, math/bigfloat is a good substitute in my situation. Even a better one because it permits a detailed exploration of the impact of varying precision. My test case was a small algorithm, implemented as four functions in a single module, so adapting the code would not have been a problem, but as you say, it risks being a pain for bigger code. Perhaps someone will do #lang bigfloat one day, that would be the perfect tool for the kind of work I did back then - but which probably few people in the Racket community will ever do. Konrad. -- 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/m1sgsvytse.fsf%40ordinateur-de-catherine--konrad.home. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
