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.
Paul Schlie wrote:
Overall the question is: if NaN's (aka <indeterminate>/<void> values) are to be embraced, should their observable effect be more generally defined throughout the entire language specification? (As otherwise the ambiguities they represent may either be obscured by subsequent evaluations, or result in potentially undesirable non-easily foreseen halting errors?)
It seems reasonable to specify: (a) The rules for arithmetic on NaNs. (b) The behaviour of eqv? on NaNs. (c) The read and write syntax of NaNs, if these exist. (d) That calling inexact->exact on a NaN signals an error. Provided one maintains (d), the effects of NaNs are limited. Regards, Alan -- Dr Alan Watson Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica Universidad Astronómico Nacional de México