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

Re: NaN

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.