[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*: Paul Schlie <schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: Error objects in general*From*: Alan Watson <a.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 05:17:21 -0800*Cc*: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>, srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <BF8A2918.BF49%schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Organization*: Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica UNAM*References*: <BF8A2918.BF49%schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050317)

Paul Schlie wrote:

- Should there be an observable difference between assoc failing to find a match given operands with well defined values, vs. given operands having un-specified values?

- Should a comparison operation (= 0 X) return #t #f or something else if the value of X is an unspecified NaN value? [as such a value may or may not be 0]?

Section 5.7 of IEEE 754 says #f.

- what should (list-ref x y) return if y had an un-specified value?

NaNs are inexact, so this should signal an error as y must be exact.

- or more generally, what value should (car #t) or (if #f #f) return?

Regards, Alan -- Dr Alan Watson Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica Universidad Astronómico Nacional de México

**References**:**Re: Error objects in general***From:*Paul Schlie

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Error objects in general** - Next by Date:
**Re: Error objects in general** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Error objects in general** - Next by thread:
**(- 1.0 1.0) => 0 ; not +0.0 ?** - Index(es):