Re: [pure-lang-users] Numeric Arguments

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

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 07:22 +0200, Albert Graef wrote:
> Eddie Rucker wrote:
> >  exactp n = not (doublep n || doublep (re n) || doublep (im n));
> 
> Yes, that looks like it could work, and it's better than my definition
> in math.pure. There's a guard if numberp n missing in your version, though.

Sorry, I overlooked this before, I see it at the bottom of math.pure.
Actually, we should probably have an inexactp too as I have a feeling I
would be checking this more that exactp as I have with Scheme's
(inexact? ). Then,

 inexactp n = doublep n || doublep (re n) || doublep (im n) if numberp
n;
 exactp n = not (inexactp n) if numberp n;

e.r.