On 11/18/2011 12:34 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
On 11/18/2011 12:22 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 11/18/2011 12:13 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
I've moved this to dev from a private discussion with Doug, who has just
tried the nightly build.
On 11/18/2011 11:43 AM, Williams, Doug wrote:
2) The plot/utils has nan? and infinite?, which are also exported from
the science collection and I had to explicitly exclude them in the
require. Can we talk to the powers that be and see about getting them
(and finite?) moved to racket/math? Then we can both remove them from
our code. [I'm not sure about any interaction with the r6rs functions.]
Powers That Be, Doug and I would like `nan?' and `infinite?' to be in
`racket/math'.
I made an exact equivalent of Doug's `finite?', but called it
`regular-real?'. I use it in all kinds of function contracts (it returns
#f for non-reals). We would also like that one, with either name, in
`racket/math'.
How does 'finite?' differ from 'rational?'?
Whoa! It doesn't!
If we're making a wishlist, I'd really like
'{positive,nonnegative}-{real,rational}?'.
For use or for contracts? For contracts, we already have `>/c', `</c',
`>=/c' and `<=/c', which can do the same as `positive-real?',
`negative-real?', `nonnegative-real?' and `nonpositive-real?' if applied
to 0, and are arguably easier to read.
I'd argue that they're less easy to read. Also, despite their
availability, I've still seen contracts that say 'real?' even when they
mean '(>=/c 0)', etc. (Or possibly 'nonnegative-rational?'.)
For the `*-rational?' ones, would they identify only exact rationals?
Because that would be inconsistent with `rational?'.
No, they should be consistent with 'rational?' and accept inexacts.
If we *are* making a wishlist, I'd like to add exact-round, exact-floor,
exact-truncate and exact-ceiling. I rarely need to chop off fractional
parts without also making the result exact.
+1
Ryan
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
