Re: [PATCH] Handle products with exact 0 differently, etc

[Mark H Weaver]

Noah Lavine <address@hidden> writes:
> I haven't read through all of the discussion yet, but it's obvious
> that you have good reasons for wanting (* 0 X) to be NaN when X is
> inexact. And yet for compatibility reasons it is nice if Guile agrees
> with Scheme standards.

In case there is any doubt, the behavior of (* 0 X) that I am advocating
(that it should yield an inexact result when X is inexact) is clearly
permitted by both the R5RS and the R6RS.  That much is beyond any doubt.

My disagreement with the R6RS is that it _permits_ an exact 0 result in
this case, even when infinities and NaNs are supported as numeric
objects.

> Therefore I think it would be great if you would send an email with
> exactly what you said here to address@hidden, which
> is the public discussion forum for R7RS.

Yes, thank you for suggesting that, I should write something up.

      Mark