Re: [pure-lang-users] Numeric Arguments

[Eddie R. <er...@bm...>]

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 16:39 +0100, Libor Spacek wrote:
> Better still, as there is an internal structure associated with this extended
> number representation, we could include a binary "exact" flag that can be 
> interrogated by the user at any point to tell them which it is.
> 

In scheme it is
 (exact? 1/4)
 #t
 (exact? 0.2)
 #f

In Pure it is
  > rationalp 1%4;
  1
  > rationalp 2.0;
  0
  > rationalp 1;
  0

Oops, Albert 1 is a rational number, so I think rationalp has a bug?

e.r.