Re: [Chicken-hackers] numerator/denominator

[felix winkelmann]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:41 PM, John Cowan<address@hidden> 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.
>

Will be fixed in trunk in a few hours.


cheers,
felix