[r6rs-discuss] Validity of nan.0 and inf.0 using a radix other than 10.
xacc.ide at gmail.com
Thu Jul 17 10:13:08 EDT 2008
>>* The question being raised is whether the
*>>* 'decimal point' in nan's and inf's should be treated as a normal decimal
*>>* point, making them implicitly a decimal.
> I do not understand what you might mean by "a decimal". So far as I know,
that phrase is not a term of art in either the R5RS or the R6RS.
Sorry I should have made it clear. A decimal as in a number parsed with a
"The rules for <num *R*>, <complex *R*>, <real *R*>, <ureal *R*>, <uinteger
*R*>, and <prefix *R*> below should be replicated for *R* = 2, 8, 10, and
16. There are no rules for <decimal 2>, <decimal 8>, and <decimal 16>, which
means that number representations containing decimal points or exponents
must be in decimal radix."
To rephrase the question: Is the '.' in nan.0 seen as a decimal point? If
so, then they MUST be in decimal radix.
You seem to 'confirm' this with:
> ... . Neither has an exactness
> prefix, so they are inexact if they contain a decimal
> point. Which they do. Therefore they are inexact.
> For example, #i#xf/c is inexact.
So what is #e#b+inf.0 ?
IMO (beside it being absurd), this is not a valid number, and should be an
Hope I explained a bit better :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the r6rs-discuss