The mathematical abstraction of irrational. That is, when I think of a real number abstractly, it includes irrationals. The fact that I have to use a representation that doesn't include irrationals doesn't mean I give up the abstract idea of reals.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Robby Findler <[email protected] > wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Doug Williams > <[email protected]> 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
