[racket-dev] [racket] Question about round

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 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 '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 would be wonderful if a language that divorces
>> itself from the old flawed Scheme world could make a clean
>> cut and do better. 
>> 
>> But I am also the person who preaches 'the path from here to
>> there' and agree that the 'wired' argument for the existing
>> code base and outside consumers tells us that Racket isn't 
>> the language that can fix these mistakes. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> 
>>> This is my opinion, too.
>>> 
>>> Robby
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at 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, tests, and documentation. I may guess
>>>> wrong, but my best estimate of the hassle for this change is that it's
>>>> too much trouble for too little payoff, and we could spend our energy
>>>> on more interesting things.
>>>> 
>>>> At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:59:25 -0400, Vincent St-Amour wrote:
>>>>> On a more general note, do we really need inexact integers?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The behavior of `integer?' is confusing, and I don't see especially
>>>>> compelling reasons to keep it this way. The subject comes up every
>>>>> couple of months on the mailing list, so we should do something about it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here's a proposal:
>>>>> `integer?' becomes the same as `exact-integer?' (which is kept for
>>>>> backwards compatibility).
>>>>> `positive-integer?' and `nonnegative-integer?' are added as
>>>>> equivalents to their `exact' counterparts.
>>>>> `inexact-integer?' is added, to cover for the use case of checking is
>>>>> an inexact number has been rounded.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I volunteer to implement this if we agree that this is the right
>>>>> thing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Vincent
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> At Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:16:22 -0600,
>>>>> Doug Williams wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Another such annoyance is than (min 1 +inf.0) => 1.0 - because if any
>>>>>> argument is inexact, the result is inexact. I don't think this makes sense
>>>>>> in the case of infinities. Infinities are very useful as initial values 
>> for
>>>>>> things that are being minimized or maximized, but there is always the need
>>>>>> for inexact->exact to protect against the (unexpected) coercion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is all from the original R5RS and continued in R6RS - but, we aren't
>>>>>> that language.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Could we get an exception to the coercions in the case of +/-inf.0? Or an
>>>>>> alternative min/max that don't do it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Matthias Felleisen
>>>>> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu>wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> exact-round is preferred.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The pragmatic answer is you generally have to write
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  (inexact->exact (round x))
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> which is annoying, but no one has yet bothered to add a standard
>>>>>>>>> library function for this, as far as I know.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [From the annoyed side, especially since that thing tends to come in
>>>>>>>> bunches which can make some quick code look much heavier than it is:]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Maybe it's time to add something for that?  `eround'?  (But even
>>>>>>>> `exact-round' would be better than the above.)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>         ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>>>>>>>>                   http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>>> For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>> For list-related administrative tasks:
>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _________________________________________________
>>> For list-related administrative tasks:
>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev