[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: REAL-NUMBER-TYPE (version 2)
- To: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, MLB@WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: REAL-NUMBER-TYPE (version 2)
- From: Robert A. Cassels <Cassels@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 13:59 EST
- Cc: Cassels@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@Sail.Stanford.EDU, DySak@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, JGA@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, Common-Lisp-Implementors@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, rwg@WHITE.SWW.Symbolics.COM
- In-reply-to: <890110092213.2.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 09:22 EST
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Beyond that, the issue is simple: programmers want a word to use.
We could note here that the Symbolics Common Lisp system already has a
name for the concept, and that since users have sent bug reports about
how poorly it's implemented, they must find it useful. The way this
concept appears in SCL is embarrassingly wrong, so I've refrained from
mentioning it so far. But now's the time....
(NUMBER <low> <high>) is treated as equivalent to
(OR (RATIONAL <low> <high>) (FLOAT <low> <high>))
Through some implementational fluke, (NUMBER * *) is equivalent to
NUMBER. Thus #C(1 2) satisfies (NUMBER * *) but not
(NUMBER <IEEE minus infinity> <IEEE plus infinity>).
the word which is used by other languages. We can avoid REAL if there is a
strong reason to do so, but we should then have some other word.
Right. The concept is demonstrably used and useful.