I already wrote: #lang racket (= (inexact->exact (round (/ 1.0 1.1e-200))) (round (/ #e1.0 #e1.1e-200))) ; -> #f A computation that ends up with an integer may introduce a computational error when during the computation inexact numbers have been used. Inexactness should remain contaguous. I do admit that (min 0 +inf.0) can retuirn an exact integer. Jos
_____ From: users-boun...@racket-lang.org [mailto:users-boun...@racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Mark Engelberg Sent: viernes, 30 de septiembre de 2011 18:18 To: Stephen Bloch Cc: users@racket-lang.org Subject: Re: [racket] Question about round I'm amazed at how long I've gone with the misconception that: Exact Numbers = Integers union Rationals Inexact Numbers = Floating Point numbers (Frankly, I never really thought much about what infinities were. I assumed they were a separate, distinct type). When I saw in the docs for round that it returns an integer, and I was getting an inexact number, I was sure it was a mistake. Thanks for helping me straighten out my thinking on this. I can see how you might want to test an inexaxct number for whether it is the floating point approximation of an "integer", so that makes sense. Still seems weird and inconvenient for round to give you back an inexact integer rather than an exact one, but I can see now how this behavior matches the standard. Thanks, Mark
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
