John Cowan <cowan@x> writes:This would be *vastly* better than the current situation. If it's the
> How about this compromise: simply remove the clause defining `eqv?` on
> non-IEEE flonums? It is arguably not a proper domain for standardization
> anyway, since there are no such implementations today. That would allow
> future implementations to return `#t` or `#f` at their discretion.
best we can hope for, then _please_ do this. This would make it very
likely that implementations would correctly extrapolate the definition
of 'eqv?' to other representations.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports