[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] More NaN and Infsanity
Peter Bex scripsit:
> What about (rationalize x y) where x or y are nan or inf?
> The notation seems to indicate that nan is allowed, since it's
> "real but not rational". However, that same sentence seems to
> indicate that rationalizing NaN would be an error.
Rationalizing infinity makes some sense, but rationalizing NaN does not,
at least not to me.
> On the other hand, R6RS seems to indicate that rationalize is
> allowed to return +nan.0, see its examples:
Indeed, which cannot be right: both R5RS and R6RS require that the result
Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan
"Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? cowan@x
Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused.
--George Starbuck, Pith and Vinegar
Scheme-reports mailing list