On Jul 23, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> To support programmers who want to use exact numbers by default, such as some
> financial programmers, without making that the default for Racket, let's say
> we define a new Racket variant for these programmers ("#lang numbers-racket",
> heh). In this case, I'm wondering whether there is a problem with any Racket
> *libraries* confusing these programmers when the numbers they get out of the
> libraries can quietly become inexact. Perhaps the solution here is simply
> that authors of numerical libraries should provide multiple two versions of
> certain of operations: a version that preserves exactness, and a version that
> is fast?
I have been thinking about this issue a bit for the SEC issue (Python for
waterfall finance models). This may indeed require a different library
interaction, possibly with coercions inserted that express interval guarantees.
Let's put it on our list of things to discuss -- Matthias
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
