On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Doug Williams <m.douglas.willi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would say your function would be better named is-digit?
Good point. However, many of the characters which are char-numeric? are digits too, in other writing systems. > and that the > char-numeric? is exactly what it is intended to be with respect to > Unicode characters, which is what a Racket character represents. What is annoying is that char-numeric? and string->number are not compatible. It would be fine for me to leave char-numeric? as it is and fix string->number to accept and act sensibly on everything that passes char-numeric?. And I'd bet that this new definition of char-numeric? has introduced thousands of covered bugs, which are not exposed only because most the char-numeric? characters outside of #\0 .. #\9 occurs rarely. P. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev