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.
Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> (* 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?
I don't know. In my model and implementation:
(* 0 +inf.0) ==> 0
(/ 0 0.0) ==> 0
(/ 0.0 0) ==> error
(/ 0 0) ==> error
In general my recipe for evaluating such operations is as follows:
1. Replace 0.0 with a very small positive number, +inf.0 with a very
large number, -0.0 and -inf.0 analogously, +nan.0 with any number.
0 stays exact.
2. Perform the operation.
3. Try to perform the inverse substitution. If the answer would depend
on the initial choice of substituted numbers:
a) If the result can't decide between 0.0 and -0.0, answer 0.0
(in most rounding modes) or -0.0 (when rounding towards -inf).
b) If the result can't decide between a number and an error,
answer the number (this happens e.g. for (/ 0 +nan.0)).
c) Otherwise answer +nan.0.
This algorithm doesn't explain two-argument atan near zero, which
is treated specially, as per IEEE and other languages (the algorithm
would answer +nan.0).
Disclaimer: I haven't checked whether atan is the only special case,
I formulated the rules just now.
Note that in my model (- 0 x) is (- x), but (- 0.0 x) is different
(assuming the default rounding mode). Also (+ A (* B +i)) is A+Bi;
this would not be true if complex numbers had both real and imaginary
part of the same exactness, because adding 0.0 is not identity at -0.0.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/