On Oct 1, 2011, at 12:54 AM, David T. Pierson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:59:25AM -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote: >> Here's a proposal: >> `integer?' becomes the same as `exact-integer?' (which is kept for >> backwards compatibility). > > It is not clear to me from the responses to this proposal whether it is > still being considered. If so I feel motivated to question it. > ... > So the original confusion was due to round returning an inexact? number. > The above proposal does not address that confusion, but instead makes > integer? return #f for inexact? inputs. So: > > (integer? 1.0) ; would be #f
I think Vincent was proposing that "round" continue to return an integer (which makes sense -- that is its raison d'etre) but that all integers be exact. At present, "round" always returns an integer, but this integer is exact only if the input was exact. (Correction: "round" does NOT always return an integer, e.g. (round +inf.0) . There are probably other counterexamples, but I haven't thought of them.) Stephen Bloch sbl...@adelphi.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
