Is it required by ANSI CL that (upgraded-complex-part-type 'rational)
be type-equivalent to rational? If so, where does it say that in the
standard?
Paul
"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> writes:
> Is it required by ANSI CL that (upgraded-complex-part-type 'rational)
> be type-equivalent to rational? If so, where does it say that in the
> standard?
Why do you ask?
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: (upgraded-complex-part-type 'rational) ==> ?
Date:
Message-ID: <uDqdnXTzpvumnrKiXTWJlg@dls.net>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> Why do you ask?
Brain fart. I cancelled that post after I made it, but cancels don't
propagate anywhere.
Paul
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: (upgraded-complex-part-type 'rational) ==> ?
Date:
Message-ID: <nLidnc4lu6gnmLKiU-KYgw@dls.net>
I wrote:
> cancels don't propagate anywhere.
Er, everywhere.
Paul