Noah Lavine <[email protected]> writes: > I haven't read through all of the discussion yet, but it's obvious > that you have good reasons for wanting (* 0 X) to be NaN when X is > inexact. And yet for compatibility reasons it is nice if Guile agrees > with Scheme standards.
In case there is any doubt, the behavior of (* 0 X) that I am advocating (that it should yield an inexact result when X is inexact) is clearly permitted by both the R5RS and the R6RS. That much is beyond any doubt. My disagreement with the R6RS is that it _permits_ an exact 0 result in this case, even when infinities and NaNs are supported as numeric objects. > Therefore I think it would be great if you would send an email with > exactly what you said here to [email protected], which > is the public discussion forum for R7RS. Yes, thank you for suggesting that, I should write something up. Mark
