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 > perspective of the type system, inexact integers are useless - they > have no closure properties, don't obey various laws we'd like the > integers to obey, etc.
This seems like it would cause far too much breakage to far too much code. I certainly wouldn't want to attempt it. Changing TR (as I suggest below) seems far easier. > 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 "Integer" to "ExactInteger" (or similar) presumably, not to add a useless type. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
