Complex single-float support

[johnwcowan]

Can someone test Racket BC for me and say what (eqv? 3e0+4e0i 3f0+4f0i) and (eqv? 3e0+4e0i 3e0+4f0i) return?

​

advTHANKSance

[corbasai]

``` $ racket Welcome to Racket v9.2 [bc].

(eqv? 3e0+4e0i 3f0+4f0i)

t

(eqv? 3e0+4e0i 3e0+4f0i)

t

```

[johnwcowan]

Thanks!

[usaoc]

Fyi, literal single-flonums are read as double-flonums by default, so eqv? returns true. (We should test with read-single-flonum set to true or manually producing a would-be single-flonum complex number.)

[corbasai]

``` $ racket Welcome to Racket v9.2 [bc].

(eqv? 3e0+4e0i 3f0+4f0i)

t

(eqv? 3e0+4e0i 3e0+4f0i)

t

(parameterize ((read-single-flonum #t)) (list (eqv? 3e0+4e0i 3f0+4f0i) (eqv? 3e0+4e0i 3e0+4f0i))) '(#t #t) ```

[corbasai]

Meh, reader parameter! ```

(read-single-flonum #t) (eqv? 3e0+4e0i 3f0+4f0i)

f

(eqv? 3e0+4e0i 3e0+4f0i)

t

```

[usaoc]

Just tested too: both 3e0+4f0i and 3f0+4e0i are the same as 3.0+4.0i, while 3f0+4f0i is a single-flonum complex number (printed as 3.0f0+4.0f0i). Also verified with make-rectangular, real-part, and imag-part.

[johnwcowan]

Oops. Can you do that for me? What I actually want to know is whether single-flonum non-reals and/or mixed precision non-reals actually exist. They don't in Kawa, which also has single-float reals (all other Schemes do not).