Questions on Scheme treatment of numbers

[spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com (Jay Freeman)]

    I have been browsing through the R3 report on Scheme, and have
become curious about some aspects of Scheme's treatment of numbers ...

    (1)  The syntax given for external representations of numbers
         appears to require that exponents -- if present -- be in
         radix 10, even when the rest of the number has been
         explicitly declared to be in binary, octal or hex.  My
         first reaction was that this is probably an oversight:
         Have I overlooked any obvious advantage or misread the
         BNF?

    (2)  I think there is an abiguity in parsing hexadecimal
         numbers:  E. g., is #x1e2 to be interpreted as one times
         sixteen to the power two (= 256), or as 1 * 256 + 14 * 16
         + 2 (= 482).  (If so, it is probably best to prefer the
         latter interpretation: a user who intends the former
         can always provide a "+" sign (#x1e+2).)

    (3)  It looks as if there is no object foo for which
         (number? foo) is #t but (complex? foo) is #f.  
         This might be a good hook for recognizing IEEE
         floating-point INFs, or for other similar overflow
         conditions.  Any thoughts?


					-- Jay Freeman