[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] update: complex egg, problems with SRFI-10 implement

From: Thomas Chust
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] update: complex egg, problems with SRFI-10 implementation
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:12:00 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20040918)

Felix Winkelmann wrote:
TiM wrote:

greetings programs.

i have a few questions about the complex egg.

first, wouldn't it be slightly more efficient to represent a complex
number as a length 2 vector?

secondly, don't we need some sort of type identifier to distinguish a
complex number from a pair, or a length 2 vector?

i'm thinking of something like ('complex . (a . b)) or ('complex . #(a b)).

Actually a seperate data type would be best (could just be a custom
record type with an accompanying printer).


If you think that would be best, why shouldn't I do it this way ;) A new version using a SRFI-9 record type instead of conses is available from the usual location.

I also defined a SRFI-10 reader constructor to go along with the record printer and ran into the following problem:

Suppose you do this in csi:

#;4> (define-record blubb a b)
#;5> (define-reader-ctor 'blubb make-blubb)


#;6> #,(blubb 1 2)
Error: illegal non-atomic object: #<blubb>

yields an error -- but why?

This works, of course:

#;6> (make-blubb 1 2)

Any ideas where this strange behaviour comes from?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]