> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> > wrote: >> No, it's not a bug. Since 1e100 is an inexact number, there's >> uncertainty about the minimum of those two numbers,
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Joe Marshall <[email protected]> wrote: >> So could a conforming implementation return 1e100 as the answer? >> (min 0 1e100) => 1e100 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> wrote: > The R6RS spec is not totally clear on this point, but I don't think it > allows that. That doesn't sound like uncertainty to me. -- ~jrm _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
