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

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Alan Watson scripsit:

> However, I'm not losing too much sleep. I suspect that implementations
> that have signed zero but are not IEEE will implement a fast native
> eqv? that behaves as (eqv? -0.0 +0.0) => #f and a slower R7RS eqv? that
> behaves as (eqv? -0.0 +0.0) => #t. 

Indeed.  Or simply violate the letter of the R7RS.

> The R7RS library system makes this quite easy to implement this. For
> this, and of course for much else, the editors should be highly
> commended.

Thank you.  Credit should go to the entire WG, who made essentially all
the decisions other than presentational ones.  I say "essentially" because
the editors occasionally went beyond the letter of votes where the intent
seemed sufficiently clear.

-- 
Dream projects long deferred             John Cowan <cowan@x>
usually bite the wax tadpole.            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --James Lileks

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