On Nov 14, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Raymond Toy wrote:
>>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Corkill <dancorkill@...> writes:
> Dan> Marco wrote:
>>> As bad as the ++ and +- stuff looks, I usually write code for
>>> CMUCL/SBCL and LW (and other ones)
>>> Having this extra bit of compatibility with LW would help.
> Dan> A small advantage of ++, +- (other than current support in
> LW) is that
> Dan> it adds only a tiny change to the reader: an additional sign
> Dan> after the exponent sign has been parsed. Christophe's 1.0/0.0
> Dan> suggestion is clearly readable by humans, but it could cause
> Dan> for someone using an infix extension, and it becomes a bit
> less clear
> Dan> specifying single, double, ... floats explicitly. (1d+inf,
> Wouldn't they be written 1d0/0d0, 1f0/0f0, and so on? Or maybe even
> 1d0/0, 1f0/0.
> I think users will have to speak up and say what they want.
The more I think about it the more I see the rationale of the LW
I use the INFIX package all the time. While I have not had to deal
with NaN and Infinities in conjunction with it (actually I had to, and
I had to kludge my way around it, with and without the INFIX package),
I can see the problems lurking in
cl-prompt> #I(1.0/0.0) ; ==> (/ 1.0 0.0)
The "infinity sign" is the obvious candidate, but the "infinity sign"
opens up the Unicode can of worms. What is the status of Unicode
support among CLs? Meaning: what are the common interfaces supported?
Barring that, the ++ thingy looks ok to me.
Marco Antoniotti http://bioinformatics.nyu.edu/~marcoxa
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th FL fax. +1 - 212 - 998 3484
New York, NY, 10003, U.S.A.