On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > 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.)
First, the change to racket is a new language, and thus an opportunity for things to be different. Future releases won't have this opportunity. Second, here's a concrete proposal: in `racket/base' and all derived languages, `integer?' means what `exact-integer?' means in `scheme/base'. `scheme' and `scheme/base' stay the same. No other changes are made to the number hierarchy. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
