Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Andrew Robbins scripsit:

> > I believe that they are not: no R7RS (or R6RS, for that matter) standard
> > procedure can distinguish between one NaN and another.
> 
> I beg to differ. Consider the functions:

[neat hack using bytevectors snipped]

Right enough.  I suppose such bytevector hacks will have to be removed 
from the definition of "operationally equivalent" if it is to be adopted.
R3RS already excludes eq? and eqv? as well as functions defined in
terms of them, such as {mem,ass}{q,v}.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@x   http://ccil.org/~cowan
It's the old, old story.  Droid meets droid.  Droid becomes chameleon.
Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back
again.  It's a classic tale.  --Kryten, Red Dwarf

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