On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 11:58:33PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 11:39:51PM +0100, Felix wrote: > > > > > > I'm thinking bugs like indexing a pixel or a database record at position > > > 1.5 due to a mistaken offset calculation. I've made mistakes like that > > > in the past and would like those to be caught early. I know we can > > > always add additional checks in wrapper code around the call, but I think > > > that if I'm asking for an integer it makes sense if it complains when > > > passed some fractional value. > > > > What happens when some integer computation involving fixnums ends up with > > something like 123.0000000001 ? Must I always wrap my arguments in "round" ? > > Actually, if you want to write portable code you must, and you must also > wrap it in inexact->exact.
Sorry, didn't read your message properly. If a calculation involving only fixnums ends up as 123.0000000001, I think you have worse problems than type mismatches. In that case you really should be using the numbers egg, or reorder the calculation to produce smaller results. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
