On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:

> An example in July draft 6.2.5 shows (real? -2.5+0.0i) as #t. The text
> above the examples says (real? z) if and only if (zero? (imag-part z))
> and (exact? (imag-part z)). The imag-part is clearly not exact.

Just off the cuff I thought fully known concrete finite-recision reals such as
0.0 were exact.  How is it not?  There is no uncertainty (no hashes indicated),
so it is mathematically equal to an exact rational number.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports