Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> writes:You already can't rely on that, even with the current R7RS wording. If
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Mark H Weaver <mhw@x> wrote:
> John Cowan <cowan@x> writes:
> > How about this compromise: simply remove the clause defining
> `eqv?` on
> > non-IEEE flonums? It is arguably not a proper domain for
> > anyway, since there are no such implementations today. That
> would allow
> > future implementations to return `#t` or `#f` at their
> This would be *vastly* better than the current situation. If it's
> best we can hope for, then _please_ do this. This would make it
> likely that implementations would correctly extrapolate the
> of 'eqv?' to other representations.
> This has been mentioned multiple times, and I think
> would be vastly inferior to the current situation. It
> means that eqv? is basically unspecified on inexacts -
> you couldn't even rely on (eqv? 1.0 1.0) => #t.
those two arguments are IEEE but of different precisions, then the
current R7RS definition requires that the result be #false. If one is
an IEEE number and the other is a non-IEEE inexact, then the current
definition fails to specify anything.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports