Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: R7RS 'eqv?' cannot be used for reliable memoization

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Mark H Weaver <mhw@x> wrote:

Indeed, you distinguished yourself as the _sole_ member of the working
group who voted for (eqv? +0.0 -0.0) => #true even for IEEE-754 floating
point numbers, thus demonstrating a lack of understanding of what 'eqv?'
is for. 

With that in mind, it is not surprising that you do not see this as a
serious flaw.

I understand the issues perfectly, I just have a different

opinion of what eqv? is for, and in my votes have very

consistently resisted changes to R5RS all around.  I

think -0.0 is a hideous wart that in a good implementation

would not even exist (underflow should instead promote

to a higher precision representation) and the notion that =

and eqv? disagree is anathema to me.

But since you've resorted to personal attacks I no longer

have any interest in what you say.

-- 

Alex

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