The mathematical abstraction of irrational. That is, when I think of a real
number abstractly, it includes irrationals. The fact that I have to use a
representation that doesn't include irrationals doesn't mean I give up the
abstract idea of reals.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu
wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Doug Williams
m.douglas.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
I would keep finite? for the semantics associated with the name even if
it
is just a renaming of rational?. Particularly since you can't just use
(not
(infinite? x)) when NaNs are a possibility. [I personally don't like
using
rational? for an abstraction that includes irrational numbers.]
Forgive me for being dense, but IIUC, aren't there no irrational
numbers in Racket? Or, put another way, which class of numbers do you
find useful to single out using rational??
Robby
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
