Re: scm_num2int change

[Maciej Stachowiak]

On 23Sep2001 10:31AM (+0200), Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Bill Schottstaedt wrote:
> 
> > > > Where in "num" does it say "exact num"?
> > > Where in "num" does it say "integer"? :)
> 
> Well, first some words about the 'content layer' of this thread:  I
> agree with Bill that scm_num2<foo> should accept _any_ number.  IMO,
> rounding should be used to produce an integer, and inexact->exact should
> be used to produce an exact result.  The reason why I think so is that the
> names scm_num2<foo> don't indicate any restriction with respect to the
> type of number they accept. 

What should these functions do with complex numbers?

 - Maciej