Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> writes: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Michael Sperber > <sper...@deinprogramm.de> wrote: >> >> Well, but the decision to have (integer? -17.0) => #t is rooted in the >> design of the numerical tower. In particular, I would think it has >> implications for: >> >> (= -17.0 -17) => ? >> (rational? -17.0) => ? > > I don't see why. For example: [...]
Then you should be able to fill in those question marks, and not answers to questions you invented yourself :-) For example, if (rational? -17.0) => #t (as it currently is), you would get a rational number with non-integral numerator and denominator. I'm not saying you couldn't do it, but the resulting numeric tower would be even weirder (and weirder in a bad way) than it currently is. > Right now, all real? numbers are rational, No: (real? +inf.0) => #t (rational? +inf.0) => #f > and all inexact numbers k are `=' to (inexact->exact k). I don't see > what that has to do with integers in particular. Doesn't it strike you as strange that an integer compared to a non-integer may compare as =? -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
