[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: scheme-reports@x*Subject*: Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] #370 log of zero*From*: Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>*Date*: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:14:22 -0400*In-reply-to*: <CAMMPzYMAUUNbbhxOxOR5fT7d9HuVUwoJ1XH+qQAOfjosJEJL0g@mail.gmail.com>*References*: <CAMMPzYMAUUNbbhxOxOR5fT7d9HuVUwoJ1XH+qQAOfjosJEJL0g@mail.gmail.com>

On 08/26/2012 04:26 AM, Alex Shinn wrote: > According to: > > http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs/r6rs-Z-H-14.html#node_sec_11.7.3.2 > > "log 0 is undefined" which is the same as R5RS and > the current draft. > > However, item #370 incorrectly claims that R6RS > changed this to (log 0.0) => -inf.0 and (log 0) => error, > and we voted on that. No, the claim in #370 is correct. In R6RS section 11.7.4.3 (Arithmetic operations), the following two examples are explicitly given: http://www.r6rs.org/final/html/r6rs/r6rs-Z-H-14.html#node_sec_11.7.4.3 (log 0.0) => -inf.0 (log 0) &assertion exception The sentence you quoted does not contradict this. First of all, it says "log 0", not "log 0.0". It is clear that the text distinguishes 0 and 0.0, as you can see in the table at the bottom of section 11.7.3.2 for two-argument arctangent, which contains the following entries (for implementations that distinguish minus zero): y condition x condition range of result =========================================== y = + 0.0 x = + 0.0 + 0.0 y = - 0.0 x = + 0.0 - 0.0 y = + 0.0 x = - 0.0 pi y = - 0.0 x = - 0.0 - pi y = + 0.0 x = 0 (pi/2) y = - 0.0 x = 0 - (pi/2) Furthermore, it should be noted that section 11.7.3.2 defines the underlying mathematical operations, which are not quite the same as the associated scheme procedures. Typically, if the mathematical operation is not defined at a given point and the argument is inexact, then a limit will be taken. For example (log 0.0) is evaluated as the limit of mathematical log(x) as x goes to zero from above, but (log 0) must throw an error. > Since the item was mis-stated and the change has > no precedent I'm annulling it. The item is stated correctly, and therefore I see no grounds for annulling this change. Mark _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] #370 log of zero***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] new wording for eqv?** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] #370 log of zero** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] new wording for eqv?** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] #370 log of zero** - Index(es):