Received: (at 30426) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2018 07:35:57 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 15 02:35:57 2018
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43584 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1emE5F-0007e8-5J
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 02:35:57 -0500
Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:59956)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <mhw@HIDDEN>) id 1emE5D-0007dv-Ad
for 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 02:35:55 -0500
Received: from pool-72-93-28-176.bstnma.east.verizon.net ([72.93.28.176]
helo=jojen)
by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <mhw@HIDDEN>)
id 1emE56-00048s-UI; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 02:35:49 -0500
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN>
To: bil@HIDDEN
Subject: Re: bug#30426: division inconsistency?
References: <afc4d9faa1402ebcac0c489efffe52e2@HIDDEN>
<874lmlrkgc.fsf@HIDDEN> <87sha5q588.fsf@HIDDEN>
<8d11fe9992e70af48db00d9a35a93a20@HIDDEN>
<87r2pnnvgb.fsf@HIDDEN>
<7d3ad28781defb8921e66e6287581af8@HIDDEN>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 02:35:14 -0500
In-Reply-To: <7d3ad28781defb8921e66e6287581af8@HIDDEN>
(bil@HIDDEN's message of "Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:10:52
-0800")
Message-ID: <87inayogct.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30426
Cc: 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
Hi Bill,
bil@HIDDEN writes:
> But if (* 0 x) is 0, you lose the notion that
> (* exact inexact) is inexact. So (* 0 +inf.0)
> should be 0.0 or maybe +nan.0. Similarly with
> +nan.0, I suppose.
No, because (* 0 x) is equivalent to (+), where the x is not an input.
In fact, this specific case (multiplication by exact 0) is given as an
example where exact 0 may be returned even if the other argument is
inexact, by R4RS, R5RS, R6RS, and R7RS.
R4RS section 6.5.2, and R5RS section 6.2.2 (Exactness), state:
With the exception of 'inexact->exact', the operations described in
this section must generally return inexact results when given any
inexact arguments. An operation may, however, return an exact result
if it can prove that the value of the result is unaffected by the
inexactness of its arguments. For example, multiplication of any
number by an exact zero may produce an exact zero result, even if the
other argument is inexact.
R6RS section 11.7.1 (Propagation of exactness and inexactness) states:
One general exception to the rule above is that an implementation may
return an exact result despite inexact arguments if that exact result
would be the correct result for all possible substitutions of exact
arguments for the inexact ones. An example is (* 1.0 0) which may
return either 0 (exact) or 0.0 (inexact).
R7RS section 6.2.2 (Exactness) states:
Except for exact, the operations described in this section must
generally return inexact results when given any inexact arguments. An
operation may, however, return an exact result if it can prove that
the value of the result is unaffected by the inexactness of its
arguments. For example, multiplication of any number by an exact zero
may produce an exact zero result, even if the other argument is
inexact.
Specifically, the expression (* 0 +inf.0) may return 0, or +nan.0, or
report that inexact numbers are not supported, or report that
non-rational real numbers are not supported, or fail silently or
noisily in other implementation-specific ways.
I'm quite sensitive to this issue, so sensitive that I decided to change
Guile several years ago so that (* 0 1.0) would return 0.0 instead of 0.
My rationale was that if the 1.0 were replaced by +inf.0 or +nan.0, then
by IEEE 754 the result should be +nan.0, and therefore that the result
was not the same regardless of the value of the inexact argument. I
didn't care that R[4567]RS specifically gave this as an example where an
exact 0 may be returned, because I judged that it violated the
principles of the exactness propagation, and I don't want to return an
exact result unless it could in principle be _proved_ to be correct.
The new language in R6RS is what changed my mind. In R6RS, you may
return an exact result if it "would be the correct result for all
possible substitutions of _exact_ arguments for the inexact ones." So,
we needn't consider what would happen if +inf.0 or +nan.0 were put in
place of the 1.0 in (* 0 1.0), because +inf.0 and +nan.0 are not exact.
I think this is the right principle. In mathematics, all real numbers
are finite; there are no infinities and no NaNs. I regard the inexact
infinities as merely inexact representations of very large finite real
numbers.
What do you think?
Regards,
Mark
bug-guile@HIDDEN:bug#30426; Package guile.
Full text available.Received: (at 30426) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2018 22:11:01 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 14 17:11:01 2018 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43416 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1em5GV-0002lb-Ob for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:11:01 -0500 Received: from mx0a-00000d04.pphosted.com ([148.163.149.245]:57100) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <bil@HIDDEN>) id 1em5GT-0002lT-8q for 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:10:57 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0102887.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00000d04.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w1EM91WP007288; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:10:56 -0800 Received: from mx0b-00000d03.pphosted.com (mx0b-00000d03.pphosted.com [148.163.153.234]) by mx0a-00000d04.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2g4we2r3gn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:10:55 -0800 Received: from pps.filterd (m0102882.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00000d03.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w1EM9tTR014163; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:10:54 -0800 Received: from codegreen8.stanford.edu (codegreen8.stanford.edu [171.67.224.10]) by mx0a-00000d03.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2g44qtugye-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:10:54 -0800 Received: from codegreen8.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by codegreen8.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012DF5A; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:10:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.stanford.edu (smtp1.stanford.edu [171.67.219.81]) by codegreen8.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E938B5A; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:10:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu (cm-mail.stanford.edu [171.64.197.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 625CE6FD26; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:10:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu (cm-mail.stanford.edu [171.64.197.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by cm-mail.stanford.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w1EMAqgs010231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:10:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:10:52 -0800 From: bil@HIDDEN To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#30426: division =?UTF-8?Q?inconsistency=3F?= In-Reply-To: <87r2pnnvgb.fsf@HIDDEN> References: <afc4d9faa1402ebcac0c489efffe52e2@HIDDEN> <874lmlrkgc.fsf@HIDDEN> <87sha5q588.fsf@HIDDEN> <8d11fe9992e70af48db00d9a35a93a20@HIDDEN> <87r2pnnvgb.fsf@HIDDEN> Message-ID: <7d3ad28781defb8921e66e6287581af8@HIDDEN> X-Sender: bil@HIDDEN User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.12 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on cm-mail.stanford.edu x-proofpoint-stanford-dir: outbound X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-02-14_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-02-14_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=4 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=391 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1802140261 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30426 Cc: 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) But if (* 0 x) is 0, you lose the notion that (* exact inexact) is inexact. So (* 0 +inf.0) should be 0.0 or maybe +nan.0. Similarly with +nan.0, I suppose.
bug-guile@HIDDEN:bug#30426; Package guile.
Full text available.
Received: (at 30426) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Feb 2018 20:55:10 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 14 15:55:10 2018
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43287 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1em457-0000wP-T7
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:55:10 -0500
Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:58896)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <mhw@HIDDEN>) id 1em456-0000wC-PL
for 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:55:09 -0500
Received: from pool-72-93-29-93.bstnma.east.verizon.net ([72.93.29.93]
helo=jojen)
by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <mhw@HIDDEN>)
id 1em450-0007u3-D5; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:55:02 -0500
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN>
To: bil@HIDDEN
Subject: Re: bug#30426: division inconsistency?
References: <afc4d9faa1402ebcac0c489efffe52e2@HIDDEN>
<874lmlrkgc.fsf@HIDDEN> <87sha5q588.fsf@HIDDEN>
<8d11fe9992e70af48db00d9a35a93a20@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:54:28 -0500
In-Reply-To: <8d11fe9992e70af48db00d9a35a93a20@HIDDEN>
(bil@HIDDEN's message of "Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:59:24
-0800")
Message-ID: <87r2pnnvgb.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30426
Cc: 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
bil@HIDDEN writes:
> Thanks very much for the informative answer! I am not sure what
> (* 0 +nan.0) should return. I lean toward +nan.0 mainly because
> I assume NaNs exist to indicate an error somewhere, and you want
> that to be returned.
It's a sensible position. FWIW, my rationale is that for all exact
integers k, (* k x) => (+ x ...) with k copies of x in the arguments.
By that rule, (* 0 x) => (+).
It's certainly true that NaNs exist to indicate errors, but they might
not be propagated to the final result due to control flow, and for a
typical formal specification of multiplication-by-exact-integer
equivalent to the rule above, the NaN would not be propagated.
More generally, if the result would be the same for _any_ exact real
substituted in place of the NaN, then I believe it's justifiable to drop
the NaN. R7RS-small states a similar rule in section 6.2.4:
An arithmetic operation where one operand is NaN returns NaN, unless
the implementation can prove that the result would be the same if the
NaN were replaced by any rational number.
> For (* 0 +inf.0) I have no druthers.
> For (/ 0.0 0) and (/ +nan.0 0) s7 throws a divide-by-zero error,
> but I have no good reason for doing this.
For lack of a more comprehensive framework to decide corner cases
involving a mixture of exact and inexact arguments, I've found it useful
to use limits to decide the results of numerical operations involving
inexact zeroes or infinities. Based on my reading of IEEE 754 and
related articles by Kahan, this is the approach that I've found is most
justifiable and consistent with IEEE 754.
For example, for (<op> 0.0 y ...), I take the limit of (<op> x y ...) as
x approaches zero from above, and similarly for 'x' in other argument
positions. For -0.0, I take the limit as x approaches zero from below.
Similarly for the infinities. This rule does not cover cases where more
than one argument is an inexact zero or infinity.
If one accepts this approach, then (/ 0.0 0) is undefined and
(* 0 +inf.0) is 0.
> In s7, I'd prefer to say (/ x y ...) is equal to (/ x (* y ...)) in
> all cases.
FWIW, I believe this is in violation of all RnRS at least as far back as
R3RS, which all specify that '/' returns the quotient of its arguments,
associating to the left. On the other hand, I've not been shy to
deviate from RnRS when I thought it made sense to do so, so I can't
complain :)
Regards,
Mark
bug-guile@HIDDEN:bug#30426; Package guile.
Full text available.Received: (at 30426) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2018 21:59:30 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 12 16:59:29 2018 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40145 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1elM8H-0003r1-NA for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:59:29 -0500 Received: from mx0b-00000d04.pphosted.com ([148.163.153.235]:54026) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <bil@HIDDEN>) id 1elM8G-0003qu-Es for 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:59:28 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0102895.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00000d04.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w1CLwJZf032569; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:59:27 -0800 Received: from mx0a-00000d03.pphosted.com (mx0a-00000d03.pphosted.com [148.163.149.244]) by mx0a-00000d04.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2g3fajsexp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:59:27 -0800 Received: from pps.filterd (m0102881.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00000d03.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w1CLsnB7005436; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:59:26 -0800 Received: from codegreen7.stanford.edu (codegreen7.stanford.edu [171.67.224.9]) by mx0a-00000d03.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2g3fuyv29d-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:59:26 -0800 Received: from codegreen7.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by codegreen7.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37CB47; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.stanford.edu (smtp3.stanford.edu [171.67.219.83]) by codegreen7.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975FB49; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu (cm-mail.stanford.edu [171.64.197.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EEA51863A8; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:59:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu (cm-mail.stanford.edu [171.64.197.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by cm-mail.stanford.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w1CLxO3h013608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:59:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 13:59:24 -0800 From: bil@HIDDEN To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#30426: division =?UTF-8?Q?inconsistency=3F?= In-Reply-To: <87sha5q588.fsf@HIDDEN> References: <afc4d9faa1402ebcac0c489efffe52e2@HIDDEN> <874lmlrkgc.fsf@HIDDEN> <87sha5q588.fsf@HIDDEN> Message-ID: <8d11fe9992e70af48db00d9a35a93a20@HIDDEN> X-Sender: bil@HIDDEN User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.12 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on cm-mail.stanford.edu x-proofpoint-stanford-dir: outbound X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-02-12_09:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-02-12_09:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=559 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1802120278 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30426 Cc: 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) Thanks very much for the informative answer! I am not sure what (* 0 +nan.0) should return. I lean toward +nan.0 mainly because I assume NaNs exist to indicate an error somewhere, and you want that to be returned. For (* 0 +inf.0) I have no druthers. For (/ 0.0 0) and (/ +nan.0 0) s7 throws a divide-by-zero error, but I have no good reason for doing this. In s7, I'd prefer to say (/ x y ...) is equal to (/ x (* y ...)) in all cases.
bug-guile@HIDDEN:bug#30426; Package guile.
Full text available.
Received: (at 30426) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2018 21:16:31 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 12 16:16:31 2018
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40111 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1elLSh-0000xV-FE
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:16:31 -0500
Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:50022)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <mhw@HIDDEN>) id 1elLSf-0000xI-LZ
for 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:16:29 -0500
Received: from pool-72-93-28-59.bstnma.east.verizon.net ([72.93.28.59]
helo=jojen)
by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <mhw@HIDDEN>)
id 1elLSa-0004jv-1Q; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:16:24 -0500
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN>
To: bil@HIDDEN
Subject: Re: bug#30426: division inconsistency?
References: <afc4d9faa1402ebcac0c489efffe52e2@HIDDEN>
<874lmlrkgc.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:15:51 -0500
In-Reply-To: <874lmlrkgc.fsf@HIDDEN> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Mon, 12
Feb 2018 16:01:39 -0500")
Message-ID: <87sha5q588.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30426
Cc: 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN> writes:
> Our core '/' operator, as defined in numbers.c, raises an exception for
> (/ x 0), for any 'x'. This does not conform to the R6RS, which
> specifies that (/ 0.0 0) => +inf.0. I don't think that rule makes sense
Sorry, I meant to write (/ 1.0 0) => +inf.0, which is one of the
examples given in the R6RS.
> because the sign of the result cannot be justified. (/ 1 0.0) => +inf.0
> and (/ 1 -0.0) => -inf.0 are more justifiable because of the signed
> inexact zeroes, but an exact zero is not signed.
>
> However, it may be that we should change this to conform to the R6RS,
> and certainly it would be good for our compiler and interpreter to agree
> on all of these edge cases.
Mark
bug-guile@HIDDEN:bug#30426; Package guile.
Full text available.
Received: (at 30426) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2018 21:02:21 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 12 16:02:21 2018
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40098 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1elLEy-0000db-Qx
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:02:21 -0500
Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:49992)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <mhw@HIDDEN>) id 1elLEw-0000dN-P2
for 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:02:19 -0500
Received: from pool-72-93-28-59.bstnma.east.verizon.net ([72.93.28.59]
helo=jojen)
by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <mhw@HIDDEN>)
id 1elLEq-0004c1-9I; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:02:12 -0500
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN>
To: bil@HIDDEN
Subject: Re: bug#30426: division inconsistency?
References: <afc4d9faa1402ebcac0c489efffe52e2@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:01:39 -0500
In-Reply-To: <afc4d9faa1402ebcac0c489efffe52e2@HIDDEN>
(bil@HIDDEN's message of "Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:56:54
-0800")
Message-ID: <874lmlrkgc.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30426
Cc: 30426 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
Hi,
bil@HIDDEN writes:
> scheme@(guile-user)> (help '/)
> - Scheme Procedure: / [x [y . rest]]
> Divide the first argument by the product of the remaining
> arguments. If called with one argument Z1, 1/Z1 is returned.
This help text is indeed incorrect. In fact, (/ x y z) is evaluated as
(/ (/ x y) z), which is not necessarily the same as (/ x (* y z)) when
using inexact arithmetic.
> A possible inconsistency:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (version)
> $1 = "2.0.13"
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 (* 0 +nan.0))
> $2 = +nan.0
Many years ago, I concluded that (* 0 +nan.0) and (* 0 +inf.0) should be
+nan.0, and that's what Guile does. I now believe that (* 0 <anything>)
should be 0. Both of these behaviors are allowed by the R6RS. Note
that when I write '0', I mean an _exact_ zero. So, the above expression
may raise an exception in a future version of Guile.
> scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 0 +nan.0)
> <unnamed port>:3:0: In procedure #<procedure 5557c36be9c0 at <current
> input>:3:0 ()>:
> <unnamed port>:3:0: Throw to key `numerical-overflow' with args `("/"
> "Numerical overflow" #f #f)
The R6RS specifies that if all arguments to '/' are exact, then the
divisors must all be nonzero. That does not apply to the above '/' call
because of the inexact +nan.0 argument. However, our compiler
transforms (/ x y z) to (/ (/ x y) z) in an early pass.
> scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 +nan.0 0)
> <unnamed port>:5:0: In procedure #<procedure 55ff47f4ad00 at <current
> input>:5:0 ()>:
> <unnamed port>:5:0: Throw to key `numerical-overflow' with args `("/"
> "Numerical overflow" #f #f)
This should probably return +nan.0, and that's what happens in Guile 2.2
for compiled code. For some of these edge cases, our compiler has
different behavior than our core numeric procedures.
Our core '/' operator, as defined in numbers.c, raises an exception for
(/ x 0), for any 'x'. This does not conform to the R6RS, which
specifies that (/ 0.0 0) => +inf.0. I don't think that rule makes sense
because the sign of the result cannot be justified. (/ 1 0.0) => +inf.0
and (/ 1 -0.0) => -inf.0 are more justifiable because of the signed
inexact zeroes, but an exact zero is not signed.
However, it may be that we should change this to conform to the R6RS,
and certainly it would be good for our compiler and interpreter to agree
on all of these edge cases.
> scheme@(guile-user)> (* +nan.0 0)
> $1 = +nan.0
> scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 +nan.0)
> $2 = +nan.0
>
> similarly with +inf.0:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 (* +inf.0 0))
> $3 = +nan.0
If we change Guile so that (* 0 x) => 0 for all x, then the expression
above will raise an exception in a future version of Guile.
> scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 +inf.0 0)
> <unnamed port>:6:0: In procedure #<procedure 5557c36f7740 at <current
> input>:6:0 ()>:
> <unnamed port>:6:0: Throw to key `numerical-overflow' with args `("/"
> "Numerical overflow" #f #f)
As with the (/ 1 +nan.0 0) case above, this should probably return
+nan.0, and that's what happens in Guile 2.2 for compiled code.
What do you think?
Regards,
Mark
bug-guile@HIDDEN:bug#30426; Package guile.
Full text available.
Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2018 23:14:12 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sun Feb 11 18:14:12 2018
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38718 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1el0p2-0003nV-JM
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:14:12 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40929)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <bil@HIDDEN>) id 1el0ZA-0003Q0-4f
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:57:48 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from <bil@HIDDEN>) id 1el0Yw-0004rB-1K
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:57:42 -0500
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled
version=3.3.2
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:38334)
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <bil@HIDDEN>)
id 1el0Yv-0004qU-Kd
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:57:33 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59524)
by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from <bil@HIDDEN>) id 1el0Yf-0000RG-UA
for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:57:33 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from <bil@HIDDEN>) id 1el0YN-0004Dx-Se
for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:57:17 -0500
Received: from mx0a-00000d04.pphosted.com ([148.163.149.245]:46786)
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <bil@HIDDEN>)
id 1el0YN-0004Aa-2h
for bug-guile@HIDDEN; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:56:59 -0500
Received: from pps.filterd (m0102887.ppops.net [127.0.0.1])
by mx0a-00000d04.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id
w1BMrAEk010139
for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:56:55 -0800
Received: from mx0a-00000d03.pphosted.com (mx0a-00000d03.pphosted.com
[148.163.149.244])
by mx0a-00000d04.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2g2x0e8462-1
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT)
for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:56:55 -0800
Received: from pps.filterd (m0102880.ppops.net [127.0.0.1])
by mx0a-00000d03.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id
w1BMtAIS005945
for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:56:55 -0800
Received: from codegreen7.stanford.edu (codegreen7.stanford.edu [171.67.224.9])
by mx0a-00000d03.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2g20e1w28r-1
(version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:56:55 -0800
Received: from codegreen7.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by codegreen7.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E19547
for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:56:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.stanford.edu (smtp3.stanford.edu [171.67.219.83])
by codegreen7.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7194247
for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:56:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu (cm-mail.stanford.edu [171.64.197.135])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC1981A00C3
for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu (cm-mail.stanford.edu [171.64.197.135])
(authenticated bits=0)
by cm-mail.stanford.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w1BMusdl022558
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO)
for <bug-guile@HIDDEN>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:56:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 14:56:54 -0800
From: bil@HIDDEN
To: bug-guile@HIDDEN
Subject: division =?UTF-8?Q?inconsistency=3F?=
Message-ID: <afc4d9faa1402ebcac0c489efffe52e2@HIDDEN>
X-Sender: bil@HIDDEN
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.12
x-proofpoint-stanford-dir: outbound
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, ,
definitions=2018-02-11_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, ,
definitions=2018-02-11_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0
priorityscore=1501
malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=5 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0
clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0
mlxlogscore=528 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx
scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1802110302
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy]
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 18:14:11 -0500
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)
A possible inconsistency:
scheme@(guile-user)> (version)
$1 = "2.0.13"
scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 (* 0 +nan.0))
$2 = +nan.0
scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 0 +nan.0)
<unnamed port>:3:0: In procedure #<procedure 5557c36be9c0 at <current
input>:3:0 ()>:
<unnamed port>:3:0: Throw to key `numerical-overflow' with args `("/"
"Numerical overflow" #f #f)
scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 +nan.0 0)
<unnamed port>:5:0: In procedure #<procedure 55ff47f4ad00 at <current
input>:5:0 ()>:
<unnamed port>:5:0: Throw to key `numerical-overflow' with args `("/"
"Numerical overflow" #f #f)
scheme@(guile-user)> (* +nan.0 0)
$1 = +nan.0
scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 +nan.0)
$2 = +nan.0
similarly with +inf.0:
scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 (* +inf.0 0))
$3 = +nan.0
scheme@(guile-user)> (/ 1 +inf.0 0)
<unnamed port>:6:0: In procedure #<procedure 5557c36f7740 at <current
input>:6:0 ()>:
<unnamed port>:6:0: Throw to key `numerical-overflow' with args `("/"
"Numerical overflow" #f #f)
bil@HIDDEN:bug-guile@HIDDEN.
Full text available.bug-guile@HIDDEN:bug#30426; Package guile.
Full text available.
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.