Re: [Chicken-users] mathematical oddities

[Peter Bex]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 08:58:04PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:49:34AM -0700, Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> > (which I'm not sure is the best way, I just wrote it late last night)
> > (and that was before I googled and discovered the Douglas-Peucker line
> > simplification algo, which is what I really want)
> > 
> > But flonums continue to exist after you do (use numbers) so why should
> > the behavior change suddenly?
> 
> Because flonums are no longer used as a poor substitute for large
> integral numbers :)
> 
> However, it does make sense to keep the same semantics for flonums, so
> I'll change this in numbers unless anyone disagrees.

The latest version (2.1) of numbers contains this fix.

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
                                                        -- Donald Knuth