On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote:
> The `flonum?' predicate would be the only new predicate for now. The
> `inexact-integer?' predicate would imply `flonum?', but not vice-versa.
I assume you mean `inexact-real?' here.
> The flonum operators (with names that start `fl' or `unsafe-fl') would
> require and produce flonums, only.
I worry that this is a hazard for existing code. For example, this
plain Racket code:
(define/contract (f x)
(inexact-real? . -> . inexact-real?)
(unsafe-fl+ x 3.2))
goes from being a safe optimization to potentially segfaulting.
Similarly (but less bad), this Typed Racket code:
(: f : Any -> Float)
(define (f x)
(if (inexact-real? x)
(fl+ x 3.2)
0.0))
which currently typechecks would now be a type error.
I don't know how much we should worry about this, but we should
probably worry at least a little.
--
sam th
[email protected]
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
