[racket-users] Re: (number->string -nan.0) == "+nan.0" ?
The question reminded me of a passage in Plauger's *The Standard C Library* (1992): "The library [math.h] doesn't try to distinguish +0 from -0. IEEE 754 worries quite a bit about this distinction. All the architectures I mentioned above can represent both flavors of zero. But I have trouble accepting (or even understanding) the rationale for this extra complexity. I can sympathize with recent critiques of the IEEE 754 Standard that challenge that rationale. Most of all, I found the functions quite hard enough to write without fretting about the sign of nothing." Ben On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 5:42:00 PM UTC-6, David K. Storrs wrote: > > I noticed that (number->string -nan.0) yields "+nan.0" instead of "-nan.0" > as I would have expected. It's not an issue for me, but I was wondering > why this is? > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[racket-users] Re: The Birth and Death of Units
To me, one of the redeeming qualities of units in Racket is that they make "the tent" bigger. Modules may usually be the right way in Racket, but the grace of Racket is that modules are not "The one true way" because the Racket community tends to eschew the OTW concept when it comes to computer languages (while tending to embrace it when it comes to teaching languages). One way of putting it is that by linking Racket to ML, Units enrich the Racket ecosystem. Conceptually, Units provides an outbound pointer rather than an internal/self-referential one. Units provide greater diversity in the way I can think about programming and allow me to explore their abstractions within the Racket ecosystem in the same way Racklog does. If nothing else the Units documentation is good reading. Racket would be poorer without Units...but I don't have to maintain them. Ben -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[racket-users] Re: Alternatives to DrRacket
I use Emacs because org-mode provides Babel and Babel lets me program in a literate style. In Emacs I can write literate code irrespective of language and I enjoy literate programming more than illiterate/unlitterate/conventional programming by a wide margin. Emacs org-mode lets me convert my literate program to web pages, markdown, and other things I don't use. So it fills in for Scribble (I found Scribble-LP challenging to use, probably in part because it does not have the same size of community). So I'd love to see org-mode Babel in DrRacket...or DrRacket in Emacs. Ben -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[racket-users] Community or Junior Colleges using Racket for Introductory or Other Courses
My child is a High School junior and has some interest (and some healthy disinterest) in pursuing computer science/engineering/programming/etc. As a Lisphead and in the interest of presenting a diversity of options if it winds up being computer etcetera, I am curious if there are an Junior/Community Colleges with Racket oriented curricula. I have a reasonable idea about four year institutions using Racket from PLT page. Thanks, Ben -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
