Re: [Chicken-hackers] numerator/denominator

[John Cowan]

Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit:

> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 01:45 -0700, Elf wrote:
> > not all flonums are rational.  chicken is perfectly compliant with
> > r5 here: r5 does not require the entire numeric tower.
> 
> 1) On Chicken Scheme, all flonums *are* rational.

Arguably that's a bug: +inf, -inf, and +nan are not rational numbers,
and Chicken should not report them as such.

-- 
John Cowan  address@hidden   http://ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.