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.
Per Bothner wrote:
Well, it seems logical to generalize "+nan.0" to "+nan.NNNNN".
Perhaps, but once you have a read/write syntax that allows you to specify the specific bit pattern you need to consider (a) how to specify the precision and (b) if and how to specify a nan without specifying the bit patterns.
Regards, Alan -- Dr Alan Watson Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica Universidad Astronómico Nacional de México