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
On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
On a more general note, do we really need inexact integers?
The behavior of `integer?' is confusing
Is it MATHEMATICALLY confusing, or is it confusing because most of us were
brought up (in CS) with integer meaning 32-bit
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
I think this is a good change for the next language, but not for `#lang
racket'.
As confusing as the current `integer?' may be, I think its definition
is deeply wired into our code, tests, and documentation. I may guess
wrong, but my best estimate of the hassle for this change is that it's
too
This is my opinion, too.
Robby
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
I think this is a good change for the next language, but not for `#lang
racket'.
As confusing as the current `integer?' may be, I think its definition
is deeply wired into our code,
I sent this to Matthew privately but I think we need to be
much more careful with 'interesting'. While you are right
about the 'wired into our code' part, I think the two of
you are wrong about the 'interesting' part.
From a type perspective, the numeric tower comes with major
flaws and it
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
I sent this to Matthew privately but I think we need to be
much more careful with 'interesting'. While you are right
about the 'wired into our code' part, I think the two of
you are wrong about the 'interesting'
Vincent's proposal seemed to me to be just a renaming the current
functions. Is there an intended change to the numeric tower that I'm
missing?
At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:28:12 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
I sent this to Matthew privately but I think we need to be
much more careful with
Yes, there is. The type Integer would denote the
exact integers now.
In general, I wanted to this email into a larger
context.
On Sep 30, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
Vincent's proposal seemed to me to be just a renaming the current
functions. Is there an intended change to
Doesn't it already? The docs say
`Integer' includes only integers that are exact numbers,
corresponding to the predicate `exact-integer?'.
Even if the type were currently `Exact-Integer', it sounds like you
mean just renaming to `Integer'.
I think a change to the number hierarchy would mean
At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:31:47 -0500,
Robby Findler wrote:
Just to clear up one more possible point: the rational? predicate
actually recognizes inexact numbers, eg:
[robby@penghu] ~/git/plt/collects/drracket/private$ racket
Welcome to Racket v5.1.3.9.
(rational? (sqrt 2))
#t
This is
And, how about adding finite? and its ilk from r6rs into #lang racket. I
have them in science/math, but they are probably core level routines. I had
mentioned before that we probably should see what from science/math might be
more useful in the core.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Vincent
Here is what I meant:
Integer in TR corresponds to exact-integer? (viewed as a predicate),
and integer? in R may or may not map to Integer or Float in TR.
There are more such anomalies. But let's rest the case here.
Too much email for one day
On Sep 30, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Vincent St-Amour
Hi all,
I'm hoping that non-developers [of Racket itself] are welcome to post
here.
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
