Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Re: make check failing

[Felix]

From: Peter Bex <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Re: make check failing
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:03:57 +0100

> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 11:58:33PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 11:39:51PM +0100, Felix wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > I'm thinking bugs like indexing a pixel or a database record at position
>> > > 1.5 due to a mistaken offset calculation.  I've made mistakes like that
>> > > in the past and would like those to be caught early.  I know we can
>> > > always add additional checks in wrapper code around the call, but I think
>> > > that if I'm asking for an integer it makes sense if it complains when
>> > > passed some fractional value.
>> > 
>> > What happens when some integer computation involving fixnums ends up with
>> > something like 123.0000000001 ? Must I always wrap my arguments in "round" 
>> > ?
>> 
>> Actually, if you want to write portable code you must, and you must also
>> wrap it in inexact->exact.
> 
> Sorry, didn't read your message properly.  If a calculation involving
> only fixnums ends up as 123.0000000001, I think you have worse problems
> than type mismatches.  In that case you really should be using the
> numbers egg, or reorder the calculation to produce smaller results.

I meant "involving flonums". Sorry.


cheers,
felix