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 particular change (in the meaning of integer?) has two pitfalls: it is hard to tell which uses of integer? have to change and thus easy to miss some, and there may be unforeseen implications in the way the number system hangs together that would be disrupted by such a change. I can certainly see how one might want to redesign the number system of Racket to something that would fit better with a type system but I'd be wary of tweaking the existing one. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
