> From: Aubrey Jaffer <xxxxxx@alum.mit.edu>
>  | > From: Aubrey Jaffer <xxxxxx@alum.mit.edu>
>  | > Inverting +/0. or -/0. returns 0.0.  So the name "error object"
>  | > wouldn't seem to apply either.
>  |
>  | - I still don't understand how it's acceptable for (/ 1/-0.0) => 0.0, as
>  |   it seems neither necessary, nor desirable to propagate IEEE-754 mistake.
>
> (limit / -/0. -1.0e222) ==> 0.0

- which is only the case as you don't differentiate between -0.0 and +0.0;
  therefore all reciprocal infinities collapse to 0.0, and hence loose their
  respective originating reciprocal signs. (which I won't debate any longer
  although I feel it's a mistake).

> The limit, as x approaches -/0. from -1e222, of (/ x) is 0.0.
>
>  | >  | This brings up an important distinction in "infinities;"
>  | >  | When you divide by exact zero you get an absolute infinity.
>  | >  | (which, perversely, is neither positive nor negative, because
>  | >  | exact zero isn't positive or negative.) Call this EO1.
>  | >
>  | > We have already covered this ground.  Division by zero is undefined;
>  | > SRFI-70 extends division by returning infinities in these cases:
>  | > (/ -5. 0) ==> -/0.; (/ 1. 0) ==> +/0., which are consistent with
>  | > the one-sided limits:
>  | >
>  | > (limit / 0 1.0e-9)                              ==> +/0.
>  | > (limit / 0 -1.0e-9)                             ==> -/0.
>  |
>  | - however as multiplication by 0 should result in 0, 0/x => 0
>  |   regardless of its denominator.
>
> There is no multiplication by 0 here; (limit / 0 1.0e-9) is the limit,
> as x approaches 0 from 1e-9, of (/ x).

- sorry, clipped what I meant to refer to:

 | 0/0. is an error object (SRFI-70 calls it an error waiting to happen),
 | but +/0. and -/0. behave differently from error objects when inverted:
 | (/ +/0.) ==> 0.0; and in numerical comparisons.