Why (eql #c(1 0) 1) but (not (eql #c(1.0 0.0) 1.0))?
From: Peter Seibel (peter_at_javamonkey.com)
Date: 11/24/03
- Next message: Peter Seibel: "Re: newbie question 'concatenate' function useage"
- Previous message: chenyu: "newbie question 'concatenate' function useage"
- Next in thread: Kent M Pitman: "Re: Why (eql #c(1 0) 1) but (not (eql #c(1.0 0.0) 1.0))?"
- Reply: Kent M Pitman: "Re: Why (eql #c(1 0) 1) but (not (eql #c(1.0 0.0) 1.0))?"
- Reply: JP Massar: "Re: Why (eql #c(1 0) 1) but (not (eql #c(1.0 0.0) 1.0))?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:10:19 GMT
Is there a deep reason--mathematical, implementational or
otherwise--that numbers of type (complex float) can have a zero
imaginary part while (complex rationals) can not? Or is it just one of
those things?
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel peter@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
- Next message: Peter Seibel: "Re: newbie question 'concatenate' function useage"
- Previous message: chenyu: "newbie question 'concatenate' function useage"
- Next in thread: Kent M Pitman: "Re: Why (eql #c(1 0) 1) but (not (eql #c(1.0 0.0) 1.0))?"
- Reply: Kent M Pitman: "Re: Why (eql #c(1 0) 1) but (not (eql #c(1.0 0.0) 1.0))?"
- Reply: JP Massar: "Re: Why (eql #c(1 0) 1) but (not (eql #c(1.0 0.0) 1.0))?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]