Re: [Chicken-users] expt incorrect in boundary cases

[Will M Farr]

On Apr 28, 2009, at 1:29 PM, John Cowan wrote:

> or an even number; so NaN is a sensible response.  I don't know what
> the motivation for (expt 1.0 +inf) being NaN is.

I suspect that the reasoning is as follows: since 1.0 is inexact, it  
could easily *mean* 0.9999999999999999999999999... or  
1.000000000000000000...1, but these give 0.0 and +inf.0 when raised to  
+inf.0, respectively.  So, it's at least reasonable to say that  
1.0^inf = NaN, given the indeterminism.

Will

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part