[Andrew Koenig] > Much as I like APL, I'd rather use Scheme's numeric model. [Guido] > I've heard that before, but I've also heard criticism of Scheme's > numeric model. "It works in Scheme" doesn't give me the warm fuzzy > feeling that it's been tried in real life. We've been thru this before too <wink>, but it doesn't even work in Scheme -- the Scheme std is too permissive in what it allows conforming implementations to get away (rationals aren't required; unbounded ints aren't required; ints *period* aren't required; while an "exact" flag is required, it has no portable mandatory semantics outside the (also undefined) range of numbers needed to index vectors; etc). Real number-crunchers have no use for it even in a full implementation, as it doesn't have a way to force precision-vs-space tradeoffs without extending the language. There's a reason the NumPy folks never bug you for Scheme features <wink>.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4