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

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

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
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports