At Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:20:37 -0600, 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?
`eq?' will not work, while Racket (unlike R6RS) promises that `eqv?' will work. At Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:15:44 -0700, David Herman wrote: > Does (not (= x x)) work? Yes, that would work too. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
