Peter Bex scripsit: > What about (rationalize x y) where x or y are nan or inf? > The notation seems to indicate that nan is allowed, since it's > "real but not rational". However, that same sentence seems to > indicate that rationalizing NaN would be an error.
Rationalizing infinity makes some sense, but rationalizing NaN does not, at least not to me. > On the other hand, R6RS seems to indicate that rationalize is > allowed to return +nan.0, see its examples: Indeed, which cannot be right: both R5RS and R6RS require that the result be rational. -- Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan "Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? [email protected] Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused. --George Starbuck, Pith and Vinegar _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
