[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] From inexact to exact using the "-" procedure?
From: |
Jeronimo Pellegrini |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] From inexact to exact using the "-" procedure? |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:01:11 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 09:28:07PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:37:06PM -0300, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
> > Well, that's supposed to be exactly the same thing,
> > so why is it exact? Is this an optimization?
>
> It's a bug. There are many, many bugs in the current release
> of the numbers egg. I'm working hard on a new release, which
> should be done soonish.
>
> In the meanwhile, could you please use numbers trunk? It would
> be very helpful to actually have users testing it before I make
> yet another broken release :)
Yes, I've just installed it.
> Quoting from another mail I posted to chicken-hackers yesterday:
> "I know these fixes have been a long time coming, and I'm sorry that it's
> taking so long, however I hope to tag a new "numbers" release soonish.
> There have been many many bugs fixed in this new version, and it will
> include (*limited*) support for extended number syntax in _compiled_ code.
>
> Along with this, it will include a types database to support
> scrutiny/specialization so that at least for flonum operations things
> will be as fast as core Chicken, and it will help to find bugs in code
> much easier when compiling. Thanks to Felix for pushing me to support
> this and developing the initial types database!
That's great news! :-)
Thanks for your explanation, and for pointing me to the svn
trunk version of the egg!
J.