On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 10:49 +0100, gabor papp wrote: > > I sort of think it would be nicer to implicitly truncate floats to ints > > coming in, but this is type coercion that I usually am dead set > > against. > we can change it back if you think it's better. in my opinion it's > confusing a bit if we silently truncate floats to ints in places where > we require ints. also in that case we could use "i" and "f" > interchangeably in ArgCheck, which does not feel right to me.
No I think you are right - my opinion is more motivated by the hassle of remembering to type (inexact->exact (round f)) while livecoding. We can solve this on the scheme end. cheers, dave
