A few minutes ago, Doug Williams wrote:
> Another such annoyance is than (min 1 +inf.0) => 1.0 - because if
> any argument is inexact, the result is inexact. I don't think this
> makes sense in the case of infinities. Infinities are very useful as
> initial values for things that are being minimized or maximized, but
> there is always the need for inexact->exact to protect against the
> (unexpected) coercion.
I agree with that (although less frequent than the previous one), but
the problem is that `exact-min' is no longer a good name for it...
> This is all from the original R5RS and continued in R6RS - but, we
> aren't that language.
>
> Could we get an exception to the coercions in the case of +/-inf.0?
> Or an alternative min/max that don't do it?
My guess is that changes in this area are hopeless, since they'll
break a bunch of code in unexpected ways. (Not to mention the TR
guys, they might get out from such a change with a PTSD.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
