Re: [racket-dev] (round), etc. in Typed Racket

Does this also mean that procedures like round, floor and ceiling will produce exact integers even when given an inexact argument? I am not sure this would be a good idea. For example consider: Now (round #i1e200) - flonum of 64 bits. But (inexact-exact (round #i1e200)) - exact integer of over 600

Re: [racket-dev] (round), etc. in Typed Racket

At Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:43:58 +0100, Jos Koot wrote: Would we not have the same problem with 'rational?'. All reals, both exact and inexact ones are rationals (for the obvious reason that we cannot represent every irrational number in finite memory) Would we not need the same distinction

Re: [racket-dev] (round), etc. in Typed Racket

-Original Message- From: Vincent St-Amour [mailto:stamo...@ccs.neu.edu] Sent: 13 December 2010 17:01 To: Jos Koot Cc: 'Noel Welsh'; dev@racket-lang.org Subject: Re: [racket-dev] (round), etc. in Typed Racket At Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:43:58 +0100, Jos Koot wrote: Would we not

Re: [racket-dev] In support of em dash

See http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=viewpr=11049 Shriram _ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev