Does (not (= x x)) work? That's the way people sometimes do it JavaScript, so it can't be wrong.
Dave On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Doug Williams wrote: > What is the correct way to test for +nan.0 in Racket? For example, (= +nan.0 > +nan.0) = #f. This seems to be the behavior specified in R6RS. In the science > collection I implemented nan? using eqv?, which seems to work in Racket; but > the result is explicitly unspecified in R6RS, which I assume means that it's > up to the implementation. Which pretty much leaves eq? as the proper test. > R6RS includes primitives like nan? and infinite?, which I included a long > time ago in the science collection. Obviously one can use them from the r6rs > libraries, but should they be moved into the racket language? > > Doug > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
