Yes, there is. The type Integer would denote the exact integers now. In general, I wanted to this email into a larger context.
On Sep 30, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > 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
