This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.

Source for wiki NegativeRationalize version 1

author

cowan

comment

ipnr

127.11.51.1

name

NegativeRationalize

readonly

text

The correct value of `(rationalize 20 1)` is 19, because 19/1 is the simplest rational that differs from 20 by an amount no more than 1.  But it is not clear what the value of `(rationalize 20 -1)` should be.  Is it also 19, or should an error be signaled?

`(rationalize 20 1)` => 19 and `(rationalize 20 -1)` => 19:  Racket, MIT, Chicken with the numbers egg, Scheme48/scsh, Guile, Kawa, SISC, Chez, Vicare, Larceny, Ypsilon, Mosh, !IronScheme, STklos, KSi, S7, Sagittarius, Foment, Chibi

`(rationalize 20 1)` => 19 but `(rationalize 20 -1)` signals an error: Gauche, Gambit

`rationalize` unsupported:  Chicken, Bigloo, Detroit, Stalin, Scheme->C, SCM, NexJ, JScheme, !SigScheme, Shoe, Mini-Scheme, !TinyScheme, Scheme 9, RScheme, Unlikely, SIOD, BDC, XLisp, Rep, Schemik, Llava, Sizzle, !FemtoLisp, Dfsch, Inlab, Picrin

`(rationalize 20 1)` => 20 and `(rationalize 20 -1)` => 20: UMB, SXM, Owl Lisp

Note that for a procedure that's been in the language since R2RS there are a remarkable number of Schemes that don't support it.  I suspect this is because implementers assume that if they don't support arbitrary exact ratnums there is no point in implementing `rationalize`, though its arguments can be either exact or inexact.

time

2016-07-01 13:31:29