On 11/11/2012 09:01 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
> In particular, the issue [Mark Weaver] bring up was already voted on
> twice. The definition of eqv? has historically been stronglyNo doubt, but for the record I agree with Mark that the specification in
> contended, and there is simply no way to make everyone
> happy on this point.
the latest draft is plain weird - if not wrong. It gives the "right" result
for inexact real numbers conforming to the IEEE 754-2008 standard, assuming
by "right" we intend something vague like "operationally equivalent". For
example two numbers with different precisions may be = but not eqv? - but
*only* if the numbers conform to the IEEE 754-2008 standard, and not for
any other kind of inexact reals.
So if R7RS is finalized with the current wording, for anyone is Mark's
position, I suggest you just document the discrepancy in your documentation
and do the right thing.
However, my suggestion to the editors would be to remove the 2 sections
about inexact real numbers that do not conform to IEEE 754-2008, and
leave this unspecified.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports