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 <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Alan Watson <a.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> NaNs are atoms -- they have no context or stucture, just a single >>> value. 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. So, tradition >>> suggests that we should have a read syntax for NaNs. >> Hogwash. Procedures are atoms. > > Wrong. Closures can be modified. Where is the Scheme function which modifies closures? I was always taught that an atom is anything which is not a cons. :) At least, the Little Lisper says so. But that aside, NaNs could also have structure, as has been pointed out; it could be useful for them to come with a tag identifying their origin. Thomas