> Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
> No, its expt as in EXPT, the Scheme procedure:
>
>  (expt +inf.0 0)    ==>  #<not-a-number expt>
>
>  (+ -inf.0 +inf.0)  ==>  #<not-a-number +>
>
>  (/ (* 0 -inf.0) 3) ==>  #<not-a-number *>
>
>  (+ 5 (/ 0.0 0.0))  ==>  #<not-a-number />

Personally I'd prefer the following as an alternative to an NAN,
where any function returning an exact 0 in lieu a typically less
useful NAN value may optionally signal an exception if desired:

 (/ 0.0 0.0) => 0 ; a sign-less exact 0 alternative to NAN

thereby correspondingly:

 (<= (/ -1.0 0.0) (/ 0.0 0.0) (/ +1.0 0.0)) => #t

and correspondingly

 (expt +inf.0 0)    => 1.0 ; as no other result is useful

 (+ -inf.0 +inf.0)  => 0

 (/ (* 0 -inf.0) 3) => 0

 (+ 5 (/ 0.0 0.0))  => 5

-------

With respect to exact integer precision, it seems that they only
should be required to be at least as great as an implementation's
corresponding inexact counterpart if implemented. i.e. >= 23 bits
of precision if inexacts are implemented as single-precision floats,
although ideally equivalent to it's dynamic range i.e. 256 bits for
single precision floats, etc. thereby both cover the same dynamic range.