Thanks! I'll fix the documentation. At Thu, 9 Aug 2012 02:07:43 +0100, milo arvidsson wrote: > I've been studying the numbers grammar in section 1.3.3 of the Racket > reference and I think I've spotted a few mistakes: > > 1. <exact-complex_n> allows the imaginary part of an exact complex > number to be signed given that an exact rational may be signed: > > <exact-integer_n> ::= [<sign>] <unsigned-integer_n> > <exact-rational_n> ::= <exact-integer_n> / <unsigned-integer_n> > <exact-complex_n> ::= <exact-rational_n> <sign> <exact-rational_n> i > > The rule allows exact complex numbers like this one: 1/2+-3/4i > > but ... > > >1/2+-3/4i > 1/2+-3/4i: undefined; > cannot reference undefined identifier > > 2. The three alternatives in <inexact-simple_n> should be unsigned > given that <inexact-unsigned_n> uses <inexact-normal_n> which uses > <inexact-simple_n>. But since exact integers may be signed, the second > alternative in <inexact-simple_n> may be signed: > > <inexact-simple_n> ::= [<exact-integer_n>] . <digits#_n> > > 3. <inexact-normal_n> allows # in an exponent: > > <digits#_n> ::= <digit_n>+ #* > ‹inexact-normal_n› ::= <inexact-simple_n> [<exp-mark_n> [<sign>] <digits#_n>] > > but ... > > >3.14e+87# > 3.14e+87#: undefined; > cannot reference undefined identifier > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
