Re: [q-lang-users] Complex numbers

[Albert G. <Dr....@t-...>]

John Cowan wrote:
> So we could, although I think the current C-based version does well
> enough.

Yes it does, but it's a PITA having to maintain all that C code. ;-) 
Because of this, I consider turning the Q machine (i.e., the interpreter 
minus the user interface) into a Q module and then reimplement the user 
interface in Q itself.

> My main ambition is not to compete with the Q interpreter,
> but to make the power of generalized term rewriting readily available
> to Scheme programmers.  For that they need an appropriately Schemish
> and S-expression-based interface.

Yes, I understand. That's a good idea, it might even lure some Schemers 
into trying Q itself. ;-)

> Thanks, fixed.  On most systems you should only need to say -lqint anyhow.

Right.

> I spotted another typo in the Q manual in at least two places: "quadrupel"
> should be "quadruple".

Another one of those annoying "German English" things. ;-) Thanks, it's 
fixed now.

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag