[R6RS] string->number

[William D Clinger]

Mike quoting me:
> > In the current draft of the R6RS, however, (/ 0 0#) is given as an
> > example whose result could be an exact 0 or +nan.0.

The actual example is for (/ 0 0.0), which is equivalent
to (/ 0 0#).

> > In my opinion, the exact 0 result is just plain wrong
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > That, of course, is just my opinion, based on my
> > personal opinion that an exact 0 is not the correct
> > result of (/ 0 0).  On the other hand, some of the
> > other editors evidently regard 0 as the correct result
> > of (/ 0 0), which is why the example is as it is in
> > the current draft of the R6RS.
> 
> Is there explicit evidence or did it just get stuck in the document
> and then overlooked?  (It sure got overlooked by me.)

Explicit evidence:
https://r6rs.scheming.org/node/170#comment-1160
https://r6rs.scheming.org/node/170#comment-1176

> > I had raised this issue before, to no good result (pardon the pun),
> > so I had put it on my list of issues to be raised during the period
> > of public review and comment.  If we could correct this example
> > before the first public draft, I would be delighted.
> 
> Let's.

I will make that change today, unless someone objects.

Will