I just grabbed two separate witnesses showing the result of the relevant floating point math - I apologize for any offense.
On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 1:15:01 PM Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > That's the saddest argument in support of anything Racket I have ever seen > (even with the smiley). > > > On Feb 24, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Andrew Kent <andmk...@indiana.edu> wrote: > > > Racket: > > (+ .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1) > > 0.7999999999999999 > > > > Python: > > >>> .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 > > > > 0.7999999999999999 > > > > Looks consistent to me =) > > > > > > On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 10:43:19 AM Laurent <laurent.ors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I've discovered a rather troubling behaviour when using `in-range` with > floating point numbers, which I think is worth knowing in case you hadn't > consider the issue before: > > > > On my machine, I get the following: > > > > (length (for/list ([i (in-range .1 .7 .1)]) i)) ; 6 > > (length (for/list ([i (in-range .1 .8 .1)]) i)) ; 8 (!) > > > > But: > > (length (for/list ([i (in-range 1/10 7/10 1/10)]) i)) ; 6 > > (length (for/list ([i (in-range 1/10 8/10 1/10)]) i)) ; 7 > > > > > > Would it be a good idea to safe-guard these kinds of cases directly in > `in-range`? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
