[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