No, it's not a bug. Since 1e100 is an inexact number, there's uncertainty about the minimum of those two numbers, and the result is therefore inexact.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Gregory Woodhouse <gregwoodho...@me.com> wrote: > Oops... Now that has to qualify as a bug. > > On Feb 14, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Joe Marshall wrote: > >> 2011/2/13 José Lopes <jose.lo...@ist.utl.pt>: >>> I understand. However, not only that disregards type promotion but also is >>> incoherent since (+ 0 0.0) evaluates to 0.0. >> >> Worse: >> (min 0 1e100) => 0.0 >> >> -- >> ~jrm > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
