arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (21 Oct 2005 14:53 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues John.Cowan (21 Oct 2005 15:59 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues bear (21 Oct 2005 16:39 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues John.Cowan (22 Oct 2005 02:03 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: +nan.0 problems bear (24 Oct 2005 06:04 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 20:24 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 20:30 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 22:25 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 22:30 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (21 Oct 2005 17:15 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (21 Oct 2005 20:24 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (21 Oct 2005 20:32 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (22 Oct 2005 00:26 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (22 Oct 2005 00:45 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (22 Oct 2005 01:17 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (22 Oct 2005 01:22 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: arithmetic issues Bradley Lucier (23 Oct 2005 19:46 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (23 Oct 2005 20:10 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (23 Oct 2005 19:54 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Jens Axel Søgaard (23 Oct 2005 20:01 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (23 Oct 2005 20:50 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 21:12 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 22:31 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 22:33 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Oct 2005 22:50 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (23 Oct 2005 22:57 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 00:53 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 01:05 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 01:45 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:00 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 02:08 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:14 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 02:27 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:45 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 02:13 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 02:22 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 03:19 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 02:01 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Aubrey Jaffer (24 Oct 2005 02:27 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 03:14 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues John.Cowan (24 Oct 2005 05:37 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Per Bothner (24 Oct 2005 07:05 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 07:58 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 08:05 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Alan Watson (24 Oct 2005 08:25 UTC)
reading NaNs Aubrey Jaffer (24 Oct 2005 15:35 UTC)
Re: reading NaNs Per Bothner (24 Oct 2005 17:35 UTC)
Re: reading NaNs bear (24 Oct 2005 19:23 UTC)
Re: reading NaNs Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 Oct 2005 18:17 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues bear (24 Oct 2005 06:13 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Taylor Campbell (24 Oct 2005 06:27 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 07:49 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues bear (24 Oct 2005 16:41 UTC)
Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 Oct 2005 07:49 UTC)

Re: arithmetic issues Thomas Bushnell BSG 24 Oct 2005 08:05 UTC

Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <xxxxxx@knm.org.pl> writes:

>> Okay, how about a library function:
>>
>> (define NaN (lambda()
>
> What advantage it has over a literal syntax? A NaN must have a literal
> syntax anyway for output.

Says who?  Ok, it's probably a good idea.  But nearly every Lisp and
Scheme system has lots of objects that have writable but non-readable
objects.

Why should we want to create new types of tokens?  That's craziness;
the genius of the language is that we *don't* just extend the lexical
character of the language to solve every new problem.

(nan) is a good, solid, schemey way of dealing.

#<nan> or whatever other grot, is not.

And '(nan)' is shorter to type!

Nothing prevents the writer from writing '(nan)' when told to output a
NaN value too.

But I'm sure you are now going to insist that it must be a single
token.  Why?  We don't have a way to write continuation objects (for
nearly every Scheme); that hasn't blocked the success of the language.