This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.

Source for ticket #327

cc

changetime

2012-10-09 10:47:35

component

WG1 - Core

description

Currently there is no guarantee of this.

Possibilities:

''All the same'': The lexical syntax for numbers accepted by `string->number` and `read`, as well as the corresponding syntax of literal numbers in programs, must be the same.

''All the same at run time'': The lexical syntax for numbers accepted by `string->number` and `read` must be the same, but the relationship with the the corresponding syntax of literal numbers in programs is unspecified.

''All potentially different'': The relationships between lexical syntax for numbers accepted by `string->number` and `read`, as well as the corresponding syntax of literal numbers in programs, is unspecified.

id

keywords

milestone

owner

cowan

priority

major

reporter

cowan

resolution

fixed

severity

status

closed

summary

Specify that read, the program reader, and string->number accept the same syntax

time

2012-01-11 14:50:45

type

defect

Changes

Change at time 2012-10-09 10:47:35

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

That is, we adopted the proposal that all three support the same syntax.

oldvalue

raw-time

1349754455949457

ticket

time

2012-10-09 10:47:35

Change at time 2012-10-09 10:47:35

author

cowan

field

resolution

newvalue

fixed

oldvalue

raw-time

1349754455949457

ticket

time

2012-10-09 10:47:35

Change at time 2012-10-09 10:47:35

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

closed

oldvalue

writing

raw-time

1349754455949457

ticket

time

2012-10-09 10:47:35

Change at time 2012-04-23 11:22:59

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

raw-time

1335154979853896

ticket

time

2012-04-23 11:22:59

Change at time 2012-04-23 11:22:59

author

cowan

field

owner

newvalue

cowan

oldvalue

alexshinn

raw-time

1335154979853896

ticket

time

2012-04-23 11:22:59

Change at time 2012-04-23 11:22:59

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

writing

oldvalue

decided

raw-time

1335154979853896

ticket

time

2012-04-23 11:22:59

Change at time 2012-04-05 08:58:56

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

The WG voted to adopt this proposal.

oldvalue

raw-time

1333591136563443

ticket

time

2012-04-05 08:58:56

Change at time 2012-04-05 08:58:56

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

decided

oldvalue

new

raw-time

1333591136563443

ticket

time

2012-04-05 08:58:56

Change at time 2012-01-15 17:32:36

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

More from Vincent:

The syntactic issues relate to such things as whether S, F, D, and L are valid ("the implementation ''may'' accept...", p. 32). Pragmatic issues include whether integer or other literals might overflow (on a bignum-less implementation), whether or not the implementation applies the same restrictions, described at the bottom of p. 37) to `string->number`, `read`, and literals in source programs; the default precision if the E exponent marker is used; and numerical roundoff on input conversion (whether, e.g., `(= (string->number? 0.1) 0.1)` is defined to be true).

Vincent formerly supported the ''All the same'' choice, but now supports ''All the same at run time''.

oldvalue

raw-time

1326619956236561

ticket

time

2012-01-15 17:32:36

Change at time 2012-01-15 17:32:36

author

cowan

field

description

newvalue

Currently there is no guarantee of this.

Possibilities:

''All the same'': The lexical syntax for numbers accepted by `string->number` and `read`, as well as the corresponding syntax of literal numbers in programs, must be the same.

''All the same at run time'': The lexical syntax for numbers accepted by `string->number` and `read` must be the same, but the relationship with the the corresponding syntax of literal numbers in programs is unspecified.

''All potentially different'': The relationships between lexical syntax for numbers accepted by `string->number` and `read`, as well as the corresponding syntax of literal numbers in programs, is unspecified.

oldvalue

Currently there is no guarantee of this.

Proposed language (from Vincent Manis):

The lexical syntax for numbers accepted by string->number and read, and the corresponding syntax in programs must be the same.

In the alternative, we should at least say the relationship is unspecified.

raw-time

1326619956236561

ticket

time

2012-01-15 17:32:36