At Sat, 1 Oct 2011 12:41:26 -0400, Stephen Bloch wrote: > 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.
Not exactly. I wasn't suggesting any change to `round'. I was suggesting changing `integer?' to only return true for exact integers. This means that the results of `round' would usually not return true when passed to `integer?', but they could still be considered inexact integers. But anyway, there is enough opposition to the proposal that things are unlikely to change, at least for now. Vincent _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
