Emmanuel Medernach scripsit: > IMHO this is restrictive, having payload to be an exact non-negative > integer (or a sequence of bits) precludes using it to store symbols > if one (future) implementation wish to do so.
I suppose that's all right. > Yes, one implementation may decide to always return the same old > NaN. My point is that (nan) and +nan.0 should have the same behaviour: What is the benefit of this? -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
