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.
The rationale discusses NaN, but I think the solution that 0/0. = 0/0. is wrong. I think it is important to be compatible with IEEE, and that 0/0. be the same as NaN. The Kawa solution (which I think is the right one): (define NaN ...) (= NaN NaN) => #f (eq? NaN NaN) => #t (eqv? NaN NaN) => #t (equal? NaN NaN) => #t This may technically violate R5RS, but I think it's the best choice if we want to be compatible with IEEE, which think we do. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/