[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Max and min with zero arguments
pgavin at gmail.com
Sat Dec 16 23:24:20 EST 2006
On 12/13/06, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> In R5RS the max and min functions must take at least one argument,
> because there is no universal maximum or minimum. In R6RS, however, we
> have +0.inf and -0.inf. I suggest, therefore, that (max) => -0.inf and
> (min) => +0.inf. This also allows multiple-argument max and min to be
> defined using a fold primitive ver two-argument versions.
I can already see a problem with this. +0.inf and -0.inf are
inexacts. Since e.g.
(max 3.9 4) => 4.0 (see section 220.127.116.11)
this would cause max and min to always return inexact numbers. This
is definitely not desirable.
More information about the r6rs-discuss