Re: real numbers and integer-expt.

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

>> OK, that's a bit confusing -- we have SCM_COMPLEXP which does *not*
>> mean the same thing as scm_complex_p -- the former checks to make sure
>> the object, tag-wise, is a complex smob, the latter checks to see if
>> the object actually contains a complex number, so we have
>> 
>>   (complex? 3) -> #t
>> 
>> but
>> 
>>   SCM_COMPLEX(SCM_MKINUM(3)) -> 0
>
> Yes, good point.  I wasn't aware of that.
>
>
> I guess we need to first answer what the purpose of 'integer-expt' is.
> Given 'expt' is it useful to have 'integer-expt' as well?  Is
> integer-expt really only for exact numbers and not for integers?  Is
> it just a subset of 'expt' for use from C code?

All good questions.  I get the impression that at least in part, it
was designed as a "helper" for use by other numbers.c functions.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD