On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Doug Williams <m.douglas.willi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would keep finite? for the semantics associated with the name even if it > is just a renaming of rational?. Particularly since you can't just use (not > (infinite? x)) when NaNs are a possibility. [I personally don't like using > rational? for an abstraction that includes irrational numbers.]
Forgive me for being dense, but IIUC, aren't there no irrational numbers in Racket? Or, put another way, which class of numbers do you find useful to single out using rational?? Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
