Re: SCM_VALIDATE_...

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>]

Jim Blandy <jimb@savonarola.red-bean.com> writes:

> I'm coming in rather late on this discussion, so I may be missing the
> point, but:
> 
> Within the interpreter, it's useful to have predicates that ask about
> a number's *representation*, not its *value*.  The Scheme-level
> predicates only ask about numbers' values, never their
> representations.
> 
> So we could have a set of predicates that ask about representations:
> 
>   SCM_REP_FIXNUM_P
>   SCM_REP_FLOAT_P
>   SCM_REP_BIGNUM_P
>   ...
> 
> and a set of predicates that ask about values (as the Scheme functions do):
> 
>   SCM_INTEGER_P
>   SCM_RATIONAL_P
>   SCM_REAL_P
>   SCM_COMPLEX_P
>   ...
> 
>   SCM_EXACT_P
>   SCM_INEXACT_P

I think this is an excellent proposal!