Gerd Moellmann wrote:
> Maybe there's an inconsistency in the standard? The description of
> COMPLEX says
> If imagpart is not supplied, the imaginary part is a zero of the
> same type as realpart; i.e., (coerce 0 (type-of realpart)) is
> effectively used.
> Wouldn't it be quite surprising if
> (imagpart -1.0)
> => -0.0
> (imagpart (complex -1.0))
> => 0.0
Perhaps. I'll also note that the sentence from COMPLEX adds
another constraint to TYPE-OF and COERCE: the type returned
(for REALS) must contain zero, and must be an admissable second
argument to COERCE.