Re: [Chicken-hackers] numerator/denominator

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 13:41 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.

Indeed, I missed that; of course, they aren't real numbers either!

So to fix that (a minor issue), we would need to separate number? and
real? for this case.  (The identity of rational? and real? would
remain.)

Thomas