Check if the distance from (0,0) is "small enough" ? On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 9:32:23 PM UTC+1 Stephen Chang wrote:
> I dont want to fully support complex numbers. I just want to do the > minimum so that programs that dont use them are not blocked by the > lack of support > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:30 PM Sorawee Porncharoenwase > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yeah, I was about to reply that I don't think there's a workaround, too. > > > > What is your goal, though? Do you intend to support complex numbers > properly right now? In particular, that problematic code is random > generation from contracts, which is rarely invoked anyway. Intuitively, > there's no reason why the complex number feature is required to get the > code running. > > > > So one potential solution is to not support complex numbers right now, > and compile all complex number literals to a JS expression that throws an > exception at runtime. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:20 PM Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:13 PM Stephen Chang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Lol I read that page and still didn't get it. > >> > > >> > Any opinion for a potential workaround? > >> > >> It depends what you mean by "workaround". The distinction between > >> exact and inexact numbers is pretty deeply built-in to how Racket > >> numbers work, so there's not going to be a simple workaround that > >> fixes this issue. > >> > >> For RacketScript I think the choices are (a) use floats for everything > >> and have semantics that diverge substantially from Racket or (b) have > >> a separate implementation of integers that's not JS numbers (maybe JS > >> bigints would work). > >> > >> Sam > >> > >> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:08 PM Sorawee Porncharoenwase > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I had this exact same question when I looked at the RacketScript > issue lol. > >> > > > >> > > The answer is https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/numbers.html: > >> > > > >> > > a complex number with an exact zero imaginary part is a real number. > >> > > > >> > > Since 0.0 is not exact, 0.0i is not a real number. > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:59 AM Stephen Chang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> In the following, why is the first considered a real number but the > >> > >> second considered not real > >> > >> > >> > >> > (real? 0.0+0i) > >> > >> #t > >> > >> > (real? 0.0+0.0i) > >> > >> #f > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Racket Users" group. > >> > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an email to [email protected]. > >> > >> To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAFfiA1%2BYygGrLH2rtwby8AWg7Edyvq-tzmANTNypq5Rqd-eXFw%40mail.gmail.com > . > >> > > >> > -- > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Racket Users" group. > >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an email to [email protected]. > >> > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAFfiA1%2B3yRzzh%3DKhcOddt0geMezNsxQGHqzwGTYbZjLekUQ8kQ%40mail.gmail.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/81f38508-f1cf-4e86-a1a9-a37924074553n%40googlegroups.com.
