[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: REAL-NUMBER-TYPE (version 2)
- To: Marc Le Brun <MLB%white.sww.symbolics.com@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Subject: Re: Issue: REAL-NUMBER-TYPE (version 2)
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 17:41:48 GMT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
There are dangers in introducing the term REAL. It encourages the
widespread confusion between a computer type, REAL, which of necessity
denotes a countable class of symbols, with the mathematical object (which
I'll call R), which is non-denumerable.
Don't we already have such problems with COMPLEX?
Hummm, maybe you're right, and we shouldn't have REAL. Common Lisp
COMPLEX seems to mean the representastion rather than the set, so that
(subtypep 'rational 'complex) => NIL, T
So adding REAL seems to imply further revisions.