Re: [pure-lang-users] Numeric Arguments

[Libor S. <li...@gm...>]

That looks good to me.

I think John Cowan made a good point about the rationals being very slow.
As I said, the chip manufacturers should be encouraged to make instructions for them,
then it will be a good way to proceed, imho. I find the slowness to be the only really
persuasive argument against what I was suggesting.

L.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:54:52 +0100, Eddie Rucker <er...@bm...> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 15:22 -0500, Eddie Rucker wrote:
>
> How about this? If anyone sees a problem let me know.
>
>  exactp n = not (doublep n || doublep (re n) || doublep (im n));
>
>  > exactp (1+:3);
>  1
>  > exactp (1%3);
>  1
>  > exactp (1.0+:3);
>  0
>  > exactp 3L;
>  1
>  > exactp 5.6;
>  0
>
> e.r.
>
>> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 16:39 +0100, Libor Spacek wrote:
>> > Better still, as there is an internal structure associated with this extended
>> > number representation, we could include a binary "exact" flag that can be
>> > interrogated by the user at any point to tell them which it is.
>> >