[r6rs-discuss] The definition of flonum is in the wrong place

From: Aubrey Jaffer <agj>
Date: Sat Oct 7 17:54:07 2006

                 submitter's name: Aubrey Jaffer
        submitter's email address: agj_at_alum.mit.edu
                    type of issue: Enhancement
                         priority: Major
                   R6RS component: Arithmetic
            version of the report: 5.91
one-sentence summary of the issue: The definition of flonum is in the wrong place
    full description of the issue:

The definition of flonums should be moved out of the "Rationale" on
page 39:

  The flonums are a subset of the inexact reals, but may be a proper
  subset.

and put on Page 100, in section "16.4. Flonums".

The phrase "but may be a proper subset" adds nothing to the
description and should be removed. To make it compatible with the
earlier proposal "NaN is not a real number", the paragraph should be
reworded:

  The flonums are a subset of the inexact reals and NaNs.

Near the bottom of page 39, the lines:

  (finite? x) procedure
  (infinite? x) procedure
  (nan? x) procedure

should be changed to:

  (finite? z) procedure
  (infinite? z) procedure
  (nan? z) procedure

The text after this (page 40) states:

  ..., finite? tests if it is not an infinity and not a NaN,
  infinite? tests if it is an infinity, nan? tests if it is a NaN.

This leaves in question whether (infinite? +nan.0). Changing the text
thus eliminates the unintended interpretation:

  ..., finite? tests if it is not an infinity and not a NaN,
  infinite? tests if it is an infinity or NaN, nan? tests if it is a
  NaN.
Received on Sat Oct 07 2006 - 17:54:08 UTC