Hello all,
Not to derail the thread of discussion, but I've had an idea for a
feature bouncing around that I think might hook into this. I think
that Guile should offer optional static checking - not just of types,
but of everything that we can check. It could be used partly for
optimization, but
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver writes:
> I just realized that there is a better way to fix these bugs. We don't
> need a new top-level case in expt after all. Instead, we generalize the
> scm_integer_expt case to support inexact integer exponents.
You mean “inexact number”, right?
The doc for ‘integ
Hi Stefan,
Lots of stuff here, which is why I took the time to read it. :-)
Stefan Israelsson Tampe writes:
> 1. The theorem prover (leanCop) is a nice exercise
[...]
> 2. Kanren is a nice way to program like with prolog,
Great that you’re mentioning them. It looks like there’s a lot of
i
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Apparently ‘api-regex.texi’ is missing.
It's in git, but I forgot to mention it in doc/ref/Makefile.am, so it
doesn't get into distributions.
I've fixed that now, so please let me know if there's still a problem in
the next build.
Nei
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> Ramakrishnan and others,
>>
>> I just realized that there is a better way to fix these bugs. We don't
>> need a new top-level case in expt after all. Instead, we generali
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Ramakrishnan and others,
>
> I just realized that there is a better way to fix these bugs. We don't
> need a new top-level case in expt after all. Instead, we generalize the
> scm_integer_expt case to support inexact integer exponents.
>
> W
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Hi Ramakrishnan,
>
> We're almost there, but you neglected one of the comments I made about
> your previous patch.
Sorry, I should pay more attention. :-(
Attaching the modified patch.
--
Ramakrishnan
From 6cca8a66a3daedb551f4f80170966d74
Ramakrishnan and others,
I just realized that there is a better way to fix these bugs. We don't
need a new top-level case in expt after all. Instead, we generalize the
scm_integer_expt case to support inexact integer exponents.
Within that case, if the exponent is an inexact integer, then we ma
Hi Ramakrishnan,
We're almost there, but you neglected one of the comments I made about
your previous patch.
> + /* If base is negative, expt needs to find -x^n = (-1^n) * (x^n).
> + We find x^n and then if n is odd, we also multiply the result
> + with -1. These changes appl
Thanks again, Mark and Ludovic.
Attached is an updated patch.
thanks
--
Ramakrishnan
From a1dd2da8562ddeb2052f2994ad0302bcc8d5d1a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 23:22:52 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] Adding a case for `expt' when base is negative.
10 matches
Mail list logo
