[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
| Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:25:09 -0500
| From: Alan Watson <a.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| NaNs are atoms -- they have no context or stucture, just a single
In an implementation which boxes flonums, NaNs aren't a single value;
EQ? and EQV? are *not* guaranteed to return #t given two NaNs.
[Read-sytnax for singular objects is useful because it allows those
objects to be put in CASE clauses. But this works only for objects
which match under EQV?.]
| With the understandable exception of the eof object (and as has
| been noted, this is exception is not universal), Lisps and Schemes
| tranditionally provide read syntax for atoms.
Closures and continuations are atomic; R5RS provides no way to
deconstruct them. Yet every implementation I have encountered has a
write syntax without a corresponding read syntax for them.
| So, tradition suggests that we should have a read syntax for NaNs.
Are you suggesting a single NaN or multiple distinct NaNs?
To support existing IEEE-754 hardware, R6RS must not mandate multiple
distinct NaNs. But specifying a singular NaN prevents implementations
from fully supporting IEEE-754 in the future.
Thus R6RS should declare that NaNs are numerical error-objects [or
condition-objects, whatever], and leave the rest to implementations.
We worked through this issue in SRFI-70. I think SRFI-70's treatment
is Schemely, compatible with IEEE-754, and doesn't unnecessarily
The notation 0/0 is used within this report to designate a numerical
error-object. A numerical function may return such an object when
no other number (including real infinities) is the correct value.
An implementation may report a violation of an implementation
restriction in any calculation for which the result would be 0/0.