Re: Making 'eq' == 'eql' in bignum branch

[Stefan Monnier]

> Let me amend what I wrote above.  I'm not excited about (max) becoming the
> common spelling for negative infinity, but I'm fine with changing max to
> accept zero arguments and return -infinity in that case (and, indeed, that's
> the only value that makes sense to me).

Same here, except rather than "I'm fine with" I'd say that I'm in favor
of it (for the same reason that I made `apply` work when called with
a single argument).

> I'd simply prefer to have a more explicit spelling for both infinities, and
> if 1.0e+INF if too hard to remember, a new read syntax or a new defconst
> would have my preference over (max) and (min).

(aol-mode 1)


        Stefan