[sorry moderator, sent from non-subscribed address]
Hi,
This worked with guile 1.8. Bug or feature?
Greetings,
Jan
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl
class.tar.gz
Description: application/compres
Hi,
See attached code, run using
./run.scm
1.8 says:
14:58:59 janneke@vuurvlieg:~/vc/schikkers-list/remove
$ ./run.scm
WARNING: (use): `remove!' imported from both (srfi srfi-1) and (remove)
: remove!
1.9.14 says:
14:58:36 janneke@vuurvlieg:~/vc/schikkers-list/remove
$
Hi,
This worked with guile 1.8. Bug or feature?
Greetings,
Jan
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl
class.tar.gz
Description: application/compressed-tar
On 1 Feb 2011, at 21:37, Andy Wingo wrote:
In (* inum flonum bigflonum), with what precision would the first
multiplication be performed? Note that currently the compiler
compiles
it as (* (* inum flonum) bigflownum).
An idea that comes to my mind is to set a minimum float precision,
whi
Here's another batch of numerics fixes and changes. Most notably, the
final patch allows Guile to represent non-real complex numbers with
inexact zero imaginary part. The first two patches fix bugs and improve
handling of signed zeroes.
Note that the patches are meant to be applied after my earl
Hello,
Neil Jerram writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
Guile 2.0 is a breakthrough in Guile's history. First and foremost, it
is based on a compiler and a virtual machine. The compiler compiles
Scheme code to bytecode, applying well-known optimizations. As a
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 02:53, Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote:
> Another recent book addresses arithmetic and the computation of
> elementary functions in software arbitrary-precision arithmetic:
>
> @String{pub-CAMBRIDGE = "Cambridge University Press"}
> @String{pub-CAMBRIDGE:adr = "Cam
Hi,
> Looks great to me! Would you mind submitting an updated patch?
It's attached.
> Also, if you like, please add yourself to the Guile group on savannah.
> Let Ludo and I know when/if you've done this and we'll be happy to add
> you there. Let's keep up the great discussion on the list, but
On Wed 02 Feb 2011 15:53, Noah Lavine writes:
>> Looks great to me! Would you mind submitting an updated patch?
>
> It's attached.
Thanks. I added a summary line and committed it.
I've added you to the Guile group. If you don't mind, please continue
to post patches to the list for a little w
On Mon 31 Jan 2011 20:53, Mark H Weaver writes:
> Given that everyone agrees that `eqv?' must distinguish 0 from 0.0, it
> is already not useful as a numerical `='. Any program that uses it this
> way is asking for trouble. Therefore, I don't have qualms about keeping
> our existing behavior, n
> I've added you to the Guile group. If you don't mind, please continue
> to post patches to the list for a little while. Try to rebase before
> pushing patches to the Guile repo; merge commits are OK sometimes, but
> we like having a nice linear history.
>
> I guess in short the thing is to keep
On Mon 31 Jan 2011 21:26, Mark H Weaver writes:
> For example, although (expt -1.0 2) yields 1.0, (expt -1 2.0) yields
> 1.0+0.0i, which is not `real?' according to the R6RS. The R6RS requires
> that `real?' return #t only if the imaginary part is an _exact_ 0.
>
> Note that operations requiring
On Wed 02 Feb 2011 12:25, Mark H Weaver writes:
> * libguile/numbers.c (scm_abs): (abs -0.0) now returns 0.0. Previously
> it returned -0.0.
I applied this, but is it right? I can convince myself both ways.
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
Hi,
I just sent a mail I didn't mean to send, I said:
On Wed 02 Feb 2011 12:25, Mark H Weaver writes:
> * libguile/numbers.c (scm_abs): (abs -0.0) now returns 0.0.
> Previously it returned -0.0.
I questioned this, but I think it's pretty fine, obviously; I meant to
ask about:
> (scm_differe
On Wed 02 Feb 2011 12:25, Mark H Weaver writes:
> Here's another batch of numerics fixes and changes.
Applied, thanks!
> There are two more patches coming soon: one to improve expt, and one to
> add many test cases to numbers.test. Hopefully these can make it into
> the imminent prerelease.
T
Andy Wingo writes:
>> (scm_difference): (- 0 0.0) now returns -0.0. Previously it returned
>> 0.0. Also make sure that (- 0 0.0+0.0i) will return -0.0-0.0i.
>
> Is this right? I can convince myself both ways.
I'm not 100% confident, but I'm pretty sure it's the right thing.
As far as I ca
We are pleased to announce GNU Guile release 1.9.15. This is the last
pre-release before the 2.0 release, due on Feb. 16th!
It provides many new noteworthy features, most notably the addition of a
compiler and virtual machine. We encourage you to test them and provide
feedback to `guile-devel@gn
On Wed 02 Feb 2011 22:36, Mark H Weaver writes:
> http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/III/RAWI
Fascinating link, thanks.
I'm OK with the way things are.
BTW: did you see the failures on darwin?
http://hydra.nixos.org/build/882506/nixlog/1
Seems there were errors in:
FAIL: numbers.tes
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> We are pleased to announce GNU Guile release 1.9.15. This is the last
> pre-release before the 2.0 release, due on Feb. 16th!
Wow, excellent job, and exciting times. Well done to everyone involved!
Neil
Andy Wingo writes:
> BTW: did you see the failures on darwin?
>
> http://hydra.nixos.org/build/882506/nixlog/1
>
> Seems there were errors in:
>
> FAIL: numbers.test: max: infinities and NaNs: (real-nan? (max +nan.0
> -inf.0))
> FAIL: numbers.test: max: infinities and NaNs: (real-nan? (
Mike Gran writes:
> One of the things that looks odd are the complex numbers in polar format
>
> 0@+nan.0 equals zero, for example.
If that we accept the R6RS's (admittedly dubious) claim that +nan.0 is a
real number, I think this is correct.
We can deduce that mag*e^(i*ang) is 0 when MAG is 0,
21 matches
Mail list logo
