# [plt-scheme] fractions and decimals

Your understanding of was correct, the converse isn't bad either,
maybe better:
A) zero(0) and repeat(_) terminated decimal fractions being exact,
inexact otherwise:
1 == 1 ; exact
1. == 1. ; inexact
1.0 == 1 ; exact
1.1 == 1.1 ; inexact
1.10 == 11/10 ; exact
1.1_ == 10/9 ; exact
vs.
B) non-zero(1-9) and repeat(_) terminated decimal fractions being exact,
inexact otherwise:
1 == 1 ; exact
1. == 1. ; inexact
1.0 == 1.0 ; inexact
1.1 == 11/10 ; exact
1.10 == 1.10 ; inexact
1.1_ == 10/9 ; exact
Option A does seem arguably more reasonable,
-paul-
on 1/20/03 10:11 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>*
*>* At Sun, 19 Jan 2003 21:00:23 -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
*>>* Wonder if broadly adopting the convention that decimals terminated with a
*>>* zero (0), would be interpreted as an inexact number, otherwise considered
*>>* exact; would help unify the two worlds;
*>*
*>* I may be misunderstanding the proposal, but I don't think this would
*>* solve the problem for the teaching levels. For example, when working
*>* with American dollars, students expect "0.10" to mean exactly a dime.
*>*
*>* Matthew
*>*
*