Vincent's proposal seemed to me to be just a renaming the current functions. Is there an intended change to the numeric tower that I'm missing?
At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:28:12 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > I sent this to Matthew privately but I think we need to be > much more careful with 'interesting'. While you are right > about the 'wired into our code' part, I think the two of > you are wrong about the 'interesting' part. > > From a type perspective, the numeric tower comes with major > flaws and it would be wonderful if a language that divorces > itself from the old flawed Scheme world could make a clean > cut and do better. > > But I am also the person who preaches 'the path from here to > there' and agree that the 'wired' argument for the existing > code base and outside consumers tells us that Racket isn't > the language that can fix these mistakes. > > > > > On Sep 30, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > > > 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 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
