This is my opinion, too. Robby
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > I think this is a good change for the next language, but not for `#lang > racket'. > > As confusing as the current `integer?' may be, I think its definition > is deeply wired into our code, tests, and documentation. I may guess > wrong, but my best estimate of the hassle for this change is that it's > too much trouble for too little payoff, and we could spend our energy > on more interesting things. > > At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:59:25 -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote: >> On a more general note, do we really need inexact integers? >> >> The behavior of `integer?' is confusing, and I don't see especially >> compelling reasons to keep it this way. The subject comes up every >> couple of months on the mailing list, so we should do something about it. >> >> Here's a proposal: >> `integer?' becomes the same as `exact-integer?' (which is kept for >> backwards compatibility). >> `positive-integer?' and `nonnegative-integer?' are added as >> equivalents to their `exact' counterparts. >> `inexact-integer?' is added, to cover for the use case of checking is >> an inexact number has been rounded. >> >> I volunteer to implement this if we agree that this is the right >> thing. >> >> Vincent >> >> >> >> At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:16:22 -0600, >> Doug Williams wrote: >> > >> > Another such annoyance is than (min 1 +inf.0) => 1.0 - because if any >> > argument is inexact, the result is inexact. I don't think this makes sense >> > in the case of infinities. Infinities are very useful as initial values for >> > things that are being minimized or maximized, but there is always the need >> > for inexact->exact to protect against the (unexpected) coercion. >> > >> > This is all from the original R5RS and continued in R6RS - but, we aren't >> > that language. >> > >> > Could we get an exception to the coercions in the case of +/-inf.0? Or an >> > alternative min/max that don't do it? >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Matthias Felleisen >> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > exact-round is preferred. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote: >> > > >> > > > Yesterday, Ryan Culpepper wrote: >> > > >> The pragmatic answer is you generally have to write >> > > >> >> > > >> (inexact->exact (round x)) >> > > >> >> > > >> which is annoying, but no one has yet bothered to add a standard >> > > >> library function for this, as far as I know. >> > > > >> > > > [From the annoyed side, especially since that thing tends to come in >> > > > bunches which can make some quick code look much heavier than it is:] >> > > > >> > > > Maybe it's time to add something for that? `eround'? (But even >> > > > `exact-round' would be better than the above.) >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: >> > > > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! >> > > > _________________________________________________ >> > > > For list-related administrative tasks: >> > > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users >> > > >> > > _________________________________________________ >> > > For list-related administrative tasks: >> > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users >> > > >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
