bug#30427: division inconsistency?

b...@ccrma.stanford.edu writes: > I forgot to include: > > scheme@(guile-user)> (help '/) > - Scheme Procedure: / [x [y . rest]] > Divide the first argument by the product of the remaining > arguments. If called with one argument Z1, 1/Z1 is returned. This email caused a second bug

bug#30426: division inconsistency?

Thanks very much for the informative answer! I am not sure what (* 0 +nan.0) should return. I lean toward +nan.0 mainly because I assume NaNs exist to indicate an error somewhere, and you want that to be returned. For (* 0 +inf.0) I have no druthers. For (/ 0.0 0) and (/ +nan.0 0) s7 throws a

bug#30426: division inconsistency?

Hi, b...@ccrma.stanford.edu writes: > scheme@(guile-user)> (help '/) > - Scheme Procedure: / [x [y . rest]] > Divide the first argument by the product of the remaining > arguments. If called with one argument Z1, 1/Z1 is returned. This help text is indeed incorrect. In fact, (/ x y

bug#30426: division inconsistency?

Mark H Weaver writes: > Our core '/' operator, as defined in numbers.c, raises an exception for > (/ x 0), for any 'x'. This does not conform to the R6RS, which > specifies that (/ 0.0 0) => +inf.0. I don't think that rule makes sense Sorry, I meant to write (/ 1.0 0) =>