[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 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan