Paul Schlie wrote:
> Any possibility of considering a somewhat more numerically
> consistent abstract notation for ambiguously signed values?
>
> (i.e. ~nan.0 replaces the positively signed +nan.0 notation)
>
> Thereby enabling the optionally supported designations:
>
> ~inf.0                                             ~inf.0
> -inf.0                  -0.0 0 +0.0                +inf.0
>    <|------------------------|-----------------------|>
>    <--------- -nan.0 -------> <-------- +nan.0 ------->
>    <---------------------- ~nan.0 -------------------->

This is an interesting question.  The IEEE-754 standard
does not mandate *any* means for determining the sign of
a NaN, but recommends a CopySign function that could be
used for that purpose.

> (/ -0.0)    => -inf.0
>
> (/ 0)       => ~inf.0 (or basic ~nan.0)
>
> (/ +0.0)    => +inf.0
>
> (/ -inf.0 +0.0) => -nan.0 (or basic ~nan.0)
>
> (/ ~inf.0 +0.0) => ~nan.0
>
> (/ +inf.0 +0.0) => +nan.0 (or basic ~nan.0)
>
> Enabling a basic implementation to simply map:
>
>   ~inf.0 -nan.0 +nan.0 => ~nan.0

SRFI 77 does not require all NaNs to print as +nan.0.
In fact, I don't believe SRFI 77 forbids any of the
NaNs you wrote above to print as ~nan.0.  In that
sense, I believe SRFI 77 already allows the extension
you desire.

The extension you desire should not be mandated,
however, because the IEEE standards explicitly allow
a very large variety of encodings for the NaN values
they specify.

Will