At Sat, 1 Oct 2011 12:41:26 -0400,
Stephen Bloch wrote:
> I think Vincent was proposing that "round" continue to return an
> integer (which makes sense -- that is its raison d'etre) but that all
> integers be exact. At present, "round" always returns an integer, but
> this integer is exact only if
On Oct 1, 2011, at 12:54 AM, David T. Pierson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:59:25AM -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
>> Here's a proposal:
>> `integer?' becomes the same as `exact-integer?' (which is kept for
>> backwards compatibility).
>
> It is not clear to me from the responses to this p
On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> On a more general note, do we really need inexact integers?
>
> The behavior of `integer?' is confusing
Is it MATHEMATICALLY confusing, or is it confusing because most of us were
brought up (in CS) with "integer" meaning "32-bit two's-com
Hi all,
I'm hoping that non-developers [of Racket itself] are welcome to post
here.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:59:25AM -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
> Here's a proposal:
> `integer?' becomes the same as `exact-integer?' (which is kept for
> backwards compatibility).
It is not clear to me from t
Here is what I meant:
Integer in TR corresponds to exact-integer? (viewed as a predicate),
and integer? in R may or may not map to Integer or Float in TR.
There are more such anomalies. But let's rest the case here.
Too much email for one day
On Sep 30, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Vincent St-Amour
And, how about adding finite? and its ilk from r6rs into #lang racket. I
have them in science/math, but they are probably core level routines. I had
mentioned before that we probably should see what from science/math might be
more useful in the core.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Vincent St-Am
At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:31:47 -0500,
Robby Findler wrote:
> Just to clear up one more possible point: the rational? predicate
> actually recognizes inexact numbers, eg:
>
> [robby@penghu] ~/git/plt/collects/drracket/private$ racket
> Welcome to Racket v5.1.3.9.
> > (rational? (sqrt 2))
> #t
This i
At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:08:07 -0600,
Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Doesn't it already? The docs say
>
> `Integer' includes only integers that are exact numbers,
> corresponding to the predicate `exact-integer?'.
>
> Even if the type were currently `Exact-Integer', it sounds like you
> mean just renam
I will implement the change locally, and see what a DrDr house call
reports.
If that sounds promising, I'll check PLaneT packages too.
(On a side note, house calls are great! It would be nice to have
something like that for PLaneT too. Something like: download all the
packages, make sure they bui
Doesn't it already? The docs say
`Integer' includes only integers that are exact numbers,
corresponding to the predicate `exact-integer?'.
Even if the type were currently `Exact-Integer', it sounds like you
mean just renaming to `Integer'.
I think a change to the number hierarchy would mean
Yes, there is. The type Integer would denote the
exact integers now.
In general, I wanted to this email into a larger
context.
On Sep 30, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Vincent's proposal seemed to me to be just a renaming the current
> functions. Is there an intended change to t
Vincent's proposal seemed to me to be just a renaming the current
functions. Is there an intended change to the numeric tower that I'm
missing?
At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:28:12 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> I sent this to Matthew privately but I think we need to be
> much more careful with 'in
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> I sent this to Matthew privately but I think we need to be
> much more careful with 'interesting'. While you are right
> about the 'wired into our code' part, I think the two of
> you are wrong about the 'interesting' part.
>
> From a
I sent this to Matthew privately but I think we need to be
much more careful with 'interesting'. While you are right
about the 'wired into our code' part, I think the two of
you are wrong about the 'interesting' part.
>From a type perspective, the numeric tower comes with major
flaws and it wo
This is my opinion, too.
Robby
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I think this is a good change for the next language, but not for `#lang
> racket'.
>
> As confusing as the current `integer?' may be, I think its definition
> is deeply wired into our code, tests, and documen
I think this is a good change for the next language, but not for `#lang
racket'.
As confusing as the current `integer?' may be, I think its definition
is deeply wired into our code, tests, and documentation. I may guess
wrong, but my best estimate of the hassle for this change is that it's
too muc
On a more general note, do we really need inexact integers?
The behavior of `integer?' is confusing, and I don't see especially
compelling reasons to keep it this way. The subject comes up every
couple of months on the mailing list, so we should do something about it.
Here's a proposal:
`integer?
17 matches
Mail list logo