Re: [Scheme-reports] 6.1 Equivalence predicates; 6.2 Numbers

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Andy Wingo <wingo@x> wrote:

The paragraph and example of eqv? on procedures with local state are
superfluous

Yes, this was left over from R5RS but is no longer particularly

interesting.  I've tentatively removed it.

 

In 6.2.4, "A NaN always compares false to any number, including a NaN".
I thought the result of the discussion was that (eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0)
could be #t?  I didn't really follow it anyway.

This is in the numbers section, so we're talking only about

arithmetic operations here, i.e. `=', `<', '>', '<=' and '>='.

-- 

Alex

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