Peter Bex scripsit: > According to the R7RS BNF, #e+inf.0 is actually valid numerical syntax,
Yes, you're right. I shouldn't have said "syntax error". > It's unclear to me whether (string->number "#e+inf.0") should > return #f or raise an error. The syntax is valid, but the question > is nonsense: "give me an exact value of infinity". In all my Schemes in which reading #e+inf.0 raises an error, using string->number returns #f. Only ones where #e+inf.0 returns +inf.0 do otherwise. > But when you realize (eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0) is unspecified (section 6.1), I wouldn't assume that's stable. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Would your name perchance be surname Puppet, given name Sock? --Rick Moen _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
