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

From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak>
Date: Sun Oct 8 11:49:05 2006

Paul Schlie <schlie_at_comcast.net> writes:

> thereby is seems most useful to define:
>
> finite? :: being certainly neither infinite? or NaN?
>
> infinite? :: being possibly infinite, inclusive of NaN :: (not finite?)

I disagree. These predicates are used when regular arithmetic is no
longer enough and special numbers must be treated separately, or when
they are treated separately for transport. There are naturally three
disjoint cases:
* finite?
* infinite?
* nan?

-- 
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak_at_knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
Received on Sun Oct 08 2006 - 11:48:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Oct 23 2024 - 09:15:01 UTC