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

Re: +nan.0 problems

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:

> Having (real? +nan.0) ==> #f and +nan.0 be an illegal argument to >,
> <, <=, and >= is compatible with IEEE-754.  Just because IEEE-754
> defines a behavior for comparisons with NaN doesn't mean Scheme must
> redefine <, ... so that it accepts non-real arguments.  Scheme already
> has lots of non-real numbers which are illegal arguments to >:
>   (> 5 5.+3.i)

I agree with this.

We could, if we chose, provide a different function, called
ieee-compare, which did accept NaNs.