RE: [racket-users] (atanh -2) -> +nan.0

2015-10-07 Thread Jos Koot
ent: miércoles, 07 de octubre de 2015 17:11 To: Tony Garnock-Jones Cc: Brian Adkins; Racket Users Subject: Re: [racket-users] (atanh -2) -> +nan.0 They are the same number, no? -> (= (make-rectangular -2 0) -2) #t -> (complex? -2) #t Robby On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Tony Garnock-Jone

Re: [racket-users] (atanh -2) -> +nan.0

2015-10-07 Thread Robby Findler
They are the same number, no? -> (= (make-rectangular -2 0) -2) #t -> (complex? -2) #t Robby On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote: > On 10/07/2015 10:19 AM, Brian Adkins wrote: >> If I instead call: (atanh (number->float-complex -2)) I do get a >> complex result. > > I wa

Re: [racket-users] (atanh -2) -> +nan.0

2015-10-07 Thread Tony Garnock-Jones
On 10/07/2015 10:19 AM, Brian Adkins wrote: > If I instead call: (atanh (number->float-complex -2)) I do get a > complex result. I was surprised to see that (atanh (make-rectangular -2 0)) => +nan.0. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" gr

[racket-users] (atanh -2) -> +nan.0

2015-10-07 Thread Brian Adkins
Someone tweeted about The Evolution of Lisp: http://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/331/resources/papers/Evolution-of-Lisp.pdf As I was reading through it, I came across (p. 52) Steele's "acceptance test". I was curious how Racket might handle it, so I tried the factorial example, which passed, and t