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

Re: NaN

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 70 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 70 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.




On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Per Bothner wrote:

>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):

Well, obviously...  if you didn't think it were the right one,
then it wouldn't be the Kawa solution, would it?  :-)

>(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.

I also think that this is the correct answer, and that
R%RS needs revision on this point.

				Bear