ent: miƩrcoles, 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
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
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
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
4 matches
Mail list logo