Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!polya!Neon.Stanford.EDU!max
From: max@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Max Hailperin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme.c
Subject: Re: IEEE-proof float unparsing
Message-ID: <11830@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 17 Sep 89 22:27:56 GMT
References: <11808@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: USENET News System <news@Polya.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: mxh@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (Max Hailperin)
Organization: Stanford University, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 7


I'm embarrassed to say that the finite? routine in my posting is rather
suboptimal.  It's the way it is for obscure historical reasons.  A
much nicer version follows:

(define (finite? x)
  (not (NaN? (- x x))))