From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:49:43 +0200 From: tlaronde@polynum.com To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20111003164943.GA605@polynum.com> References: <20111002163800.GA12773@polynum.com> <20111002175227.2D7F1B856@mail.bitblocks.com> <20111002182846.GA20646@polynum.com> <20111002190618.54195B852@mail.bitblocks.com> <20111003114131.GA7326@polynum.com> <1FC8ACD9-092B-43DB-8FF5-206FA5E02C55@bitblocks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1FC8ACD9-092B-43DB-8FF5-206FA5E02C55@bitblocks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: Re: [9fans] circular fonctions: precision? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 30453048-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:39:16AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: > > Integer & rational arithmetic is guaranteed in Scheme and some other languages. In an R5RS compliant Scheme implementation you have for example (/ 5 7) => 5/7. (If only people get over their irrational fear of prefix syntax they would discover a great little language in Scheme.) But most prog. languages do not specify minimal required accuracy on standard floating pt. functions. May be because most language hackers are not numerical analysts! Thanks for your comments. I must really tackle Scheme some day! -- Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C