Probably an obvious error, but on page 81 (second page), they say the following: Another correct test case is as follows: > (rat (float -1 23 -6))

Probably an obvious error, but on page 81 (second page), they say the following: Another correct test case is as follows: > (rat (float -1 23 -6)) - (26) / (34) In truth, this should be - 23 / 64, which is a very different number. Perhaps there's comical value in an article about accurate math having inaccurate typography?