bear wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, William D Clinger wrote:

>>2.  The proposed 1/0 and -1/0 syntax for infinities
>>has two related problems: it looks like these things
>>are exact, and allowing this syntax will require a
>>more complicated rule for deciding whether a numeric
>>literal is exact or inexact.
>
>>3.  The +inf.0 and -inf.0 syntax is already used by
>>several implementations, which agreed to standardize
>>upon it several years ago, before the SRFI process
>>began.  Th +inf.0 and -inf.0 syntaxes (and +nan.0)
>>also appear within The Revised R6RS Status Report of
>>October 2004, which is online at www.schemers.org.
>
>
> I agree with this, by the way: I'd much rather see
> +inf.0 and -inf.0 than 1/0 and -1/0.  To me the
> connotations are different:  +inf.0 means "numeric
> overflow:"  1/0 means "illegal operation."  Or,
> mathematically, +inf.0 seems to mean "we can't tell
> how big this is, and it may be infinite" and 1/0
> means "this is, exactly and absolutely, a first-order
> infinity."  I find +inf.0 and -inf.0 seem to me to
> express the ideas that are more in line with the way
> they are used in computer programs. Besides, they
> are already used by more implementations than 1/0
> and -1/0.

I too agree. Due to my day job, as soon as I see 1/0
I begin to look for the red pencil.

--
Jens Axel Søgaard