At this point we're just talking about nomenclature. I think round would still return an inexact integer, as it does at the moment, but we wouldn't call this an integer.
(More broadly I find the numeric tower more hassle than help. A lot of my code cares about efficiency and interacting with C libraries, so perhaps I'm atypical.) N. On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Jos Koot <jos.k...@telefonica.net> wrote: > Does this also mean that procedures like round, floor and ceiling will > produce exact integers even when given an inexact argument? I am not sure > this would be a good idea. For example consider: > Now (round #i1e200) -> flonum of 64 bits. > But (inexact->exact (round #i1e200)) -> exact integer of over 600 bits. > Nevertheless the idea of making a distinction between integer? and > inexact-integer? (or whatever you want to name them) seems to be a good > idea. However, we already have integer? and exact-integer? > Am I missing the pointe of the discussion? > Jos _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
