Hi Thanks for the clarification, I however am still unsure which route to follow.
> I agree that #e+inf.0 should be an error, and I > believe that it *is* an error in approximately the > R5RS sense, which is to say it has unspecified > behavior with respect to the R6RS: Implementations > of the R6RS are not required to raise an exception > when they encounter #e+inf.0 as a lexical token, > because it is clearly generated by the lexical > syntax and there is no clarifying prose to suggest > that it is illegal or should raise an exception; > at the same time, implementations should be allowed > to raise an exception because #e+inf.0 makes no sense. > So as the behavoir is unspecified, this leads to a paradox! - read number (say #e+inf.0) - if you allow inf.0, then no error, but the number is not exact (and cannot possibly be exact), and applying exact to inf.0 yields an exception. - if you do not allow inf.0, then you raise an exception, and the input is deemed invalid. So either way, it does not make sense. Cheers leppie _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
