Check if the distance from (0,0) is "small enough" ?
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:32:23 PM UTC+1 Stephen Chang wrote:
> I dont want to fully support complex numbers. I just want to do the
> minimum so that programs that dont use them are not blocked by the
> lack of support
>
> On Fri, Nov
I dont want to fully support complex numbers. I just want to do the
minimum so that programs that dont use them are not blocked by the
lack of support
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:30 PM Sorawee Porncharoenwase
wrote:
>
> Yeah, I was about to reply that I don't think there's a workaround, too.
>
>
Yeah, I was about to reply that I don't think there's a workaround, too.
What is your goal, though? Do you intend to support complex numbers
properly right now? In particular, that problematic code is random
generation from contracts, which is rarely invoked anyway. Intuitively,
there's no reason
Sorry, the "workaround" was in regard to complex numbers. How to
support them in a minimal way so that programs that dont use them are
not blocked by lack of full support.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:20 PM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:13 PM Stephen Chang wrote:
> >
> >
Lol I read that page and still didn't get it.
Any opinion for a potential workaround?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:08 PM Sorawee Porncharoenwase
wrote:
>
> I had this exact same question when I looked at the RacketScript issue lol.
>
> The answer is
I had this exact same question when I looked at the RacketScript issue lol.
The answer is https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/numbers.html:
a complex number with an exact zero imaginary part is a real number.
Since 0.0 is not exact, 0.0i is not a real number.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:59
In the following, why is the first considered a real number but the
second considered not real
> (real? 0.0+0i)
#t
> (real? 0.0+0.0i)
#f
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
7 matches
Mail list logo
