This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
"John.Cowan" <jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit: > >> > While they seem silly for small integers, inexact integers make sense >> > for huge values. For example, people often round huge integers to the >> > nearest million or billion. An even better example: Avogadro's number is >> > an integer, but it should not be represented as an exact integer, >> > because its exact value is unknown. >> >> What makes you think Avogadro's number is an integer? > > A bad example, no doubt. But the current world population, though > unquestionably an integer, is not exactly known, and it is quite plausible > to say that it is 64########. Yep, that's a better example indeed. ;) I don't disagree at all with the *real* point that inexact integers have useful applications; I agree that they do. Thomas