On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 08:34, Raymond Toy wrote:
> I propose we do not do this. It merely hides the bugs for Clisp, but
> does nothing for the other lisps. We need to find those places where
> we didn't properly convert the numbers to double-floats.
This deserves some discussion. We agree that we need to fix the
precision problems in general.
With Sam's patch:
1) The tests work as expected with clisp 2.29 and clisp 2.30.
2) clisp 2.30 prints a zillion messages about floating point contagion.
Without Sam's patch:
1) The tests work as expected with clisp 2.29, but at least one
additional failure is observed with 2.30.
We will not fix all floating-point inconsistencies before 5.9.0. I am
uncomfortable releasing 5.9.0 with avoidable errors in the current
version of clisp. As a compromise, we could add a bug to the bug tracker
to remind us that the clisp floating-point setting is a temporary hack.
What do you think?
--Jim