[racket-dev] (round), etc. in Typed Racket

At this point we're just talking about nomenclature. I think round
would still return an inexact integer, as it does at the moment, but
we wouldn't call this an integer.

(More broadly I find the numeric tower more hassle than help. A lot of
my code cares about efficiency and interacting with C libraries, so
perhaps I'm atypical.)

N.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Jos Koot <jos.koot at telefonica.net> wrote:
> Does this also mean that procedures like round, floor and ceiling will
> produce exact integers even when given an inexact argument? I am not sure
> this would be a good idea. For example consider:
> Now (round #i1e200) -> flonum of 64 bits.
> But (inexact->exact (round #i1e200)) -> exact integer of over 600 bits.
> Nevertheless the idea of making a distinction between integer? and
> inexact-integer? (or whatever you want to name them) seems to be a good
> idea. However, we already have integer? and exact-integer?
> Am I missing the pointe of the discussion?
> Jos