While +nan.0 is not a Rational, it is a perfectly valid Number so it sort of tickled the question as to whether the intent of '~r' is as a Number formatting procedure or as a Rational formatting procedure. Was just double (no pun intended) checking intent. I could see it going either way.
Thanks, Ray On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Ryan Culpepper <[email protected]> wrote: > The contract for '~r' deliberately excludes +nan.0, +inf.0, etc---that's > why it's 'rational?' and not 'real?'. The point of '~r' is to provide > numeric formatting options, none of which apply to +nan.0, etc. > > Ryan > > > > On 03/04/2013 01:26 PM, Ray Racine wrote: > >> Currently the `~r' format routine, which accepts rationals, barfs on >> +nan.0 and siblings, which are not rationals. My current use case is >> simply displaying sub-ranges of vectors of flonums. It is not a problem >> to check for +nan.0 and explicitly display it. I was just wanted to toss >> it out as a don't know what is the "right thing" for the `~r' format >> routine to do here. >> >> > (define: x : Flonum +nan.0) >> > (define: y : Flonum 3.145962) >> > (~r y) >> - : String >> "3.145962" >> > (~r x) >> ~r: contract violation >> expected: rational? >> given: +nan.0 >> ... >> >> >> >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/**users<http://lists.racket-lang.org/users> >> >> >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
