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

*To*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Is exact 0 "stronger" than inexact 0.0?*From*: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:34:17 -0400 (EDT)*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(* 0 +inf.0) ==> +nan.0 ... (/ 0 0.0) ==> unspecified (/ 0.0 0) ==> +nan.0 (/ 0.0 0.0) ==> +nan.0 Why is only (/ 0 0.0) out of this set unspecified? How should (/ 0 0) behave? -=-=-=-=- The description of `+' and `*' says: If any of these procedures are applied to mixed non-rational real and non-real complex arguments, they either report a violation of an implementation restriction or return an unspecified number. The only non-rational real numbers in current implementations are +inf.0 and -inf.0. Is this what was intended? If so, calling them infinities would be less cryptic. Shouldn't that sentence also appear in the description of `-' and `/'? It allows return of "an unspecified number." Does that allow a NaN to be returned?

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Is exact 0 "stronger" than inexact 0.0?***From:*Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk

- Prev by Date:
**Re: multiplicative inverse of 0.0** - Next by Date:
**Re: Is exact 0 "stronger" than inexact 0.0?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Testing the reference implementation** - Next by thread:
**Re: Is exact 0 "stronger" than inexact 0.0?** - Index(es):