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
Except for `finite?' (which seems to be covered by `rational?'), these
additions sound fine to me.
I'm not sure whether they should go in `racket/math' or `racket/base',
though. Although it feels wrong to keep adding to `racket/base', two
thoughts make me lean in that direction:
* It will be con
On 11/18/2011 01:35 PM, Stephen Bloch wrote:
On Nov 18, 2011, at 2:34 PM, "Neil Toronto" wrote:
... I'd like to add exact-round, exact-floor, exact-truncate and exact-ceiling.
I rarely need to chop off fractional parts without also making the result exact.
That might be convenient, but it's
Mine are from the pre-r6rs days are exactly the same definitions as from
the GSL, which may differ slightly from those in r6rs. I would have to
check. They already exist in Racket in the r6rs stuff. I have no problem
with using those definitions instead of the ones from the GSL.
On Fri, Nov 18, 20
On Nov 18, 2011, at 2:34 PM, "Neil Toronto" wrote:
> ... I'd like to add exact-round, exact-floor, exact-truncate and
> exact-ceiling. I rarely need to chop off fractional parts without also making
> the result exact.
That might be convenient, but it's philosophically dubious. Consider roundi
On 11/18/2011 12:34 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
On 11/18/2011 12:22 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 11/18/2011 12:13 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
I've moved this to dev from a private discussion with Doug, who has just
tried the nightly build.
On 11/18/2011 11:43 AM, Williams, Doug wrote:
2) The plot/uti
On 11/18/2011 12:22 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
On 11/18/2011 12:13 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
I've moved this to dev from a private discussion with Doug, who has just
tried the nightly build.
On 11/18/2011 11:43 AM, Williams, Doug wrote:
2) The plot/utils has nan? and infinite?, which are also exp
On 11/18/2011 12:13 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
I've moved this to dev from a private discussion with Doug, who has just
tried the nightly build.
On 11/18/2011 11:43 AM, Williams, Doug wrote:
2) The plot/utils has nan? and infinite?, which are also exported from
the science collection and I had to
I've moved this to dev from a private discussion with Doug, who has just
tried the nightly build.
On 11/18/2011 11:43 AM, Williams, Doug wrote:
2) The plot/utils has nan? and infinite?, which are also exported from
the science collection and I had to explicitly exclude them in the
require. Can
11 matches
Mail list logo
