# [plt-dev] Inexact integers

Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>* On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Michael Sperber
*>* <sperber at 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