Re: [pure-lang-users] Numeric Arguments

[Albert G. <Dr....@t-...>]

Eddie Rucker wrote:
> 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;

Agreed. Well, maybe you should keep the explicit definition of exactp,
too, so that numberp doesn't need to be called twice. Can you commit
those changes, please?

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag