Check if the distance from (0,0) is "small enough" ? On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:32:23 PM UTC+1 Stephen Chang wrote:
> I dont want to fully support complex numbers. I just want to do the > minimum so that programs that dont use them are not blocked by the > lack of support > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:30 PM Sorawee Porncharoenwase > <sorawe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Yeah, I was about to reply that I don't think there's a workaround, too. > > > > What is your goal, though? Do you intend to support complex numbers > properly right now? In particular, that problematic code is random > generation from contracts, which is rarely invoked anyway. Intuitively, > there's no reason why the complex number feature is required to get the > code running. > > > > So one potential solution is to not support complex numbers right now, > and compile all complex number literals to a JS expression that throws an > exception at runtime. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:20 PM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@indiana.edu> > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:13 PM Stephen Chang <stcha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Lol I read that page and still didn't get it. > >> > > >> > Any opinion for a potential workaround? > >> > >> It depends what you mean by "workaround". The distinction between > >> exact and inexact numbers is pretty deeply built-in to how Racket > >> numbers work, so there's not going to be a simple workaround that > >> fixes this issue. > >> > >> For RacketScript I think the choices are (a) use floats for everything > >> and have semantics that diverge substantially from Racket or (b) have > >> a separate implementation of integers that's not JS numbers (maybe JS > >> bigints would work). > >> > >> Sam > >> > >> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:08 PM Sorawee Porncharoenwase > >> > <sorawe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I had this exact same question when I looked at the RacketScript > issue lol. > >> > > > >> > > The answer is https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/numbers.html: > >> > > > >> > > a complex number with an exact zero imaginary part is a real number. > >> > > > >> > > Since 0.0 is not exact, 0.0i is not a real number. > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:59 AM Stephen Chang <stcha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> In the following, why is the first considered a real number but the > >> > >> second considered not real > >> > >> > >> > >> > (real? 0.0+0i) > >> > >> #t > >> > >> > (real? 0.0+0.0i) > >> > >> #f > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> 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 racket-users...@googlegroups.com. > >> > >> To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAFfiA1%2BYygGrLH2rtwby8AWg7Edyvq-tzmANTNypq5Rqd-eXFw%40mail.gmail.com > . > >> > > >> > -- > >> > 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 racket-users...@googlegroups.com. > >> > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAFfiA1%2B3yRzzh%3DKhcOddt0geMezNsxQGHqzwGTYbZjLekUQ8kQ%40mail.gmail.com > . > -- 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/81f38508-f1cf-4e86-a1a9-a37924074553n%40googlegroups.com.
