| From: Matthew Flatt (mflatt at cs.utah.edu) Date: Thu Jul 16 09:00:39 EDT 2009 |
|
At Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:00:25 +0100, "Paulo J. Matos" wrote: > I find that the scheme languages misses infinite? which r6rs has. > What's the reason for this? Only that there has never been any particular demand, as far as I know. > Is it ok to define infinite? as: > (define (infinite? x) (or (eq? x +inf.0) (eq? x -inf.0))) Use `eqv?' instead of `eq?', and then that's right.
| Posted on the users mailing list. |
|
![[logo]](/logo.png){kind=logo}