[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposed language for 'eqv?' applied to inexact real numbers

Mark H Weaver scripsit:

> The eqv? procedure returns #t if one of the following holds:
> [...]
> * obj_1 and obj_2 are both inexact real numbers, are not both
>   representations of NaNs, and the implementation can prove that
>   obj_1 and obj_2 are /operationally equivalent/.

What is the operational definition of "can prove"?  I say my
implementation can't prove anything about inexacts, and then
(eqv? inexact1 inexact2) always returns #f.  

John Cowan            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan     cowan@x
Uneasy lies the head that wears the Editor's hat! --Eddie Foirbeis Climo

Scheme-reports mailing list