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

[Paul Schlie]

> Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
>> Paul Schlie wrote:
>> [although the draft is seemingly silent on (fl<= +nan.0 +inf.0)]
>
> IEEE arithmetic says #f, and I consider bropken any language which
> tries to do otherwise.

then presumably scheme is broken defining:

(fl= +nan.0 +nan.0) => #f ; being that ieee defines it as #t
or
(flexpt -1.0 +inf.0) => NaN (hopefully); as ieee defines it as oddly 1.0

among a few of ieee oddities which scheme need/should not conform to; as
ieee 754 is more a result of political compromise based on then current
historical implementations, than mathematical consistency; and need not
be viewed as anything more sacred than this. (in my opinion)