On 2/14/11 3:14 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
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.
I would've expected min to return a number that is `eq?' to one of its
arguments.
In other words, what is wrong with this definition of `min'?
(define (min n1 n2)
(cond [(<= n1 n2) n1]
[else n2]))
(min 0 1e100) ;=> 0
David
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
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
