[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Chicken-users] rectnum? misdefined in numbers egg?

From: John Cowan
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] rectnum? misdefined in numbers egg?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:11:35 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Kon Lovett scripsit:

> >Normally, a rectnum is understood to be a representation of a non-real
> >number as two boxes containing arbitrary real numbers, whereas a
> >compnum uses two unboxed flonums.

Y'know, I wonder: does the numbers egg actually *use* the compnum
representation at all (a C array with two doubles), or are all complex
numbers just C arrays with two pointers, like ratnums?  If there aren't
really any compnums, the compnum? predicate makes no sense: the whole
purpose of these functions is to allow low-level code to determine
actual representations.

> So 1.1+1i is a rectnum?

Surely, since 1.1 and 1 are different representation types.

You escaped them by the will-death              John Cowan
and the Way of the Black Wheel.                 address@hidden
I could not.  --Great-Souled Sam      

reply via email to

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