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

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

*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):