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
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Doug Williams
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?
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.]
On Frida
3 matches
Mail list logo
