Re: [Chicken-hackers] numerator/denominator

[John Cowan]

Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit:

> But I don't care much about it, we could take the alternative view of
> r6rs, and then real? and number? would continue to match, and rational?
> would be false on the infinities and nans.

Pragmatically I prefer this view.  In theory, +inf, -inf, and +nan
can be understood as vague rational numbers, where +inf is "a rational
number larger than any representable number" and -inf corresponds to that.
But +nan is sometimes "no number at all" and sometimes "any number at all"
and doesn't quite fit.

-- 
There is / One art                      John Cowan <address@hidden>
No more / No less                       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
To do / All things
With art- / Lessness                     --Piet Hein