Re: [PATCH] Handle products with exact 0 differently, etc

[Noah Lavine]

Hello Mark,

I haven't read through all of the discussion yet, but it's obvious
that you have good reasons for wanting (* 0 X) to be NaN when X is
inexact. And yet for compatibility reasons it is nice if Guile agrees
with Scheme standards. Therefore I think it would be great if you
would send an email with exactly what you said here to
address@hidden, which is the public discussion
forum for R7RS.

Of course Guile could just implement this itself, and maybe it will,
but our lives would be much easier if our behavior could be both
useful and standard, and it seems that the best way to do that might
be to change the standard.

Noah

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> wrote:
> I wrote:
>>> Are you following specific references here?  FWIW, for cases like this,
>>> the last para of R6RS 11.7.1 allows "either 0 (exact) or 0.0 (inexact)".
>>
>> Yes, the R6RS does allow (* 1.0 0) to be an exact 0, but that's because
>> it also allows (* 0 +inf.0) and (* 0 +nan.0) to be an exact 0.  Section
>> 11.7.4.3 provides the following examples:
>>
>>   (* 0 +inf.0)  ==>  0 or +nan.0
>>   (* 0 +nan.0)  ==>  0 or +nan.0
>>   (* 1.0 0)     ==>  0 or 0.0
>>
>> It follows from the rules of exactness propagation that (* 1.0 0) may be
>> an exact 0 only if (* 0 X) is an exact 0 for _any_ inexact X.
>
> I apologize, I should have admitted that I am going a bit further than
> the R6RS strictly requires, based on my understanding of the rationale
> behind exactness in Scheme.
>
> It is true that both the R5RS and the R6RS specifically give (* 0 X),
> for inexact X, as an example where it is permissible to return an exact
> 0, without mentioning any associated caveats, e.g. that one must also
> make (* 0 +inf.0) and (* 0 +nan.0) be an exact 0 as well.
>
> I suspect the reason that the R5RS did not mention these caveats is that
> it does not specify anything about infinities or NaNs.  For example,
> MIT/GNU Scheme evaluates (* 0 X) to exact 0 for inexact X, but that is
> justified because its arithmetic operations do not produce infinities or
> NaNs; they throw exceptions instead.
>
> As for the R6RS, I confess that a strict reading of the exactness
> propagation rule does allow (* 0 X) to be 0 for inexact 0, even
> (* 0 +inf.0) yields something else.  That's because their rule requires
> only that the same result is returned for all possible substitutions of
> _exact_ arguments for the inexact ones.  Since the infinities and NaNs
> are not exact, they are not considered as possible substitutions.
>
>  One general exception to the rule above is that an implementation may
>  return an exact result despite inexact arguments if that exact result
>  would be the correct result for all possible substitutions of exact
>  arguments for the inexact ones.
>
> I think that the R6RS is wrong here.  As I understand it, the rationale
> for the exactness system is to allow the construction of provably
> correct programs, despite the existence of inexact arithmetic.  One
> should be able to trust that any exact number is provably correct,
> presuming that inexact->exact was not used of course.
>
> Is there a compelling reason why (* 0 X) should yield an exact 0 for
> inexact X?  Is there a reason more important than being able to trust
> that exact values are provably correct?
>
>    Best,
>     Mark
>
>