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

From: Aubrey Jaffer <agj>
Date: Sun Oct 8 21:10:29 2006

 | Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:51:36 -0400
 | From: Paul Schlie <schlie_at_comcast.net>
 |
 | > Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
 | > 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?
 |
 | as (fl< +nan.0 +inf.0) => #f, and considered a valid numerical
 | comparison, it would appear they are not numerically disjoint?
 |
 | [although the draft is seemingly silent on (fl<= +nan.0 +inf.0)]

"NaN is not a real number" addresses this. NaN is not real, so it is
an illegal argument to numerical order predicates.
Received on Sun Oct 08 2006 - 21:10:01 UTC