I was amused but not surprised, if that makes sense, and I agree that it is clear elsewhere.
I was thinking a few extra bytes for another example in the documentation for number? might be worthwhile, and in the same tutorial spirit of the comment in the following entry for complex? Tim > On 22 Mar 2018, at 07:01, Philip McGrath <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the introduction to the "Numbers" section is fairly clear that, from > Racket's perspective, +nan.0 and +nan.f are inexact real numbers: > https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/numbers.html > > I do appreciate the irony of the names. Perhaps `(number? +nan.0)` could be > added as another example of `number?` in the documentation, if this is > surprising or unclear. > > -Philip > >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Tim Jervis <[email protected]> wrote: >> I was amused to see (number? +nan.0) returns #t. Is it worth noting this in >> the documentation? >> >> https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/number-types.html?q=number%3F#%28def._%28%28quote._~23~25kernel%29._number~3f%29%29 >> >> Tim >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Racket Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
