I was not thinking of unsafe operations.
Jos
-Original Message-
From: Vincent St-Amour [mailto:stamo...@ccs.neu.edu]
Sent: 13 December 2010 18:11
To: Jos Koot
Cc: 'Vincent St-Amour'; 'Noel Welsh'; dev@racket-lang.org
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] (round), etc. in Typed Racket
I absolutely totally agree. -- Rudoplh, red-nodes raindeer
On Dec 14, 2010, at 8:33 AM, Doug Williams wrote:
How about Racket II as a unified literate (from the Scribble syntax), typed,
contracted Racket?
Of all the syntaxes for defining things, the ones from Scribble (e.g.,
defproc)
...@racket-lang.org
[mailto:dev-boun...@racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Robby Findler
Sent: 13 December 2010 14:29
To: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Cc: dev@racket-lang.org
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] (round), etc. in Typed Racket
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu
At Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:43:58 +0100,
Jos Koot wrote:
Would we not have the same problem with 'rational?'.
All reals, both exact and inexact ones are rationals (for the obvious reason
that we cannot represent every irrational number in finite memory)
Would we not need the same distinction
-Original Message-
From: Vincent St-Amour [mailto:stamo...@ccs.neu.edu]
Sent: 13 December 2010 17:01
To: Jos Koot
Cc: 'Noel Welsh'; dev@racket-lang.org
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] (round), etc. in Typed Racket
At Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:43:58 +0100,
Jos Koot wrote:
Would we
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
Changing Racket is tricky, but I think using the `Integer' type for
something useless (it's not even currently represented in the TR type
system) would be a mistake.
Well, the change to TR would be to change
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
Changing Racket is tricky, but I think using the `Integer' type for
something useless (it's not even currently represented in the TR
Since Racket is not Scheme anymore, I think revisiting some of the
annoyances of Scheme should be fair game. And, certainly the semantics of
integer? is an annoyance. It is useful if you KNOW you are restricted to a
range where floating point CAN exactly represent an integer (|x| 15 or so)
and
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Doug Williams
m.douglas.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
Since Racket is not Scheme anymore, I think revisiting some of the
annoyances of Scheme should be fair game.
Just to clarify what I wrote before, I certainly agree with this
point. My worry is that this
An hour ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
This particular change is a good example: You'd have to get used to
the idea that Integer denotes 'exact integer'. Is this really bad?
Then again, perhaps we should produce a brand new
#lang racket2
that is a true break and develop
#lang
Maybe someone can figure out a sensible way for modules to specify in
which version(s) of the Racket language they are believed to work, and
what to do with that information.
I'm not sure what's sensible. I could see being able to specify this
module was last developed and working with
I've discovered what may be a bug in the type system of Typed Racket. The
functions that round - (round), (truncate), (ceiling), etc. are typed as
Real, not Integer; however, the result of (integer? (round (* 10e15
(random is consistently true - and the same holds for the other rounding
This seems like an unfortunate naming discrepancy.
Robby
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Vincent St-Amour stamo...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
At Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:35:17 -0700,
Petey Aldous wrote:
I've discovered what may be a bug in the type system of Typed Racket. The
functions that round -
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
This seems like an unfortunate naming discrepancy.
I agree. I think the solution is to change Racket, however. From the
perspective of the type system, inexact integers are useless - they
have no closure
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
This seems like an unfortunate naming discrepancy.
I agree. I think the solution is to change Racket, however. From the
15 matches
Mail list logo
