This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 70 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 70 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> From: Paul Schlie <schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> So large exact numbers must be less than +/0.. > > - maybe I misunderstand, but my attempted point was that since many exact > implementations enable the representation of value of greater magnitude than > the value range that an inexact infinity begins, it seems incorrect to define > that (> #i1/0 1e1000) if #i1/0 represents all values greater than an inexact > 1e306 for example. I would presume: > > (> #i1/0 1e1000) => #f > and > (= #i1/0 1e1000) => #f > yet > (> #e1/0 1e1000) => #t > > assuming #e1/0 were unique from #i1/0, and representing all values greater > than the representational range of an exact implementation, assuming that all > implementations of exact have some practical limit. Thereby also: > > (>= #e1/0 #i1/0) => #f ; as #e1/0 is a subset of #i1/0, not > or =. sorry, the above should be #t, as the #e1/0 set will be >= to #i1/0 .