Aubrey Jaffer scripsit:
> 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".
+1
> The phrase "but may be a proper subset" adds nothing to the
> description and should be removed.
It is a very useful clarification, especially given that there will
probably be many systems in which the flonums will not be a proper
subset of the inexact reals.
> 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
I consider it useful to apply these procedures to non-numbers.
> 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.
This seems to be a very unlikely interpretation. NaNs are not infinities.
--
There are three kinds of people in the world: John Cowan
those who can count, cowan_at_ccil.org
and those who can't.
Received on Sun Oct 08 2006 - 01:41:40 UTC