On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 9:32 PM, David Van Horn <dvanh...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > I talked with the PLTers who attended TFP and it was agreed that inexact > integers, a holdover from Scheme standards, are counter intuitive. I wonder > if it is worth doing away with them in Racket?
Maybe in a later release. But the design of the number hierarchy is complex so if we were to contemplate such a thing, the proposal would probably have to be more concrete. (After all, we dno't want to do away with something float-like completely, for performance reasons.) > They cause a mess with the types in Typed Scheme (IME) and lead to bugs in > contracts and code. For example, the contract on `text' in 2htdp/image says > the font size argument is an `integer?', but really it should be > `exact-integer?'. For example: > > #lang racket > (require 2htdp/image) > (text "hi" 12.0 'black) > > This gives: > > find-or-create-font in font-list% (family id case): expected argument of > type <exact integer in [1, 255]>; given 12.0 This is fixed (not yet pushed). Anyone know if this holds for all x (where => is implication)? (=> (integer? x) (integer? (inexact->exact x))) Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
