[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>*Subject*: Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0*From*: leppie <xacc.ide@x>*Date*: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:07:38 +0200*Cc*: John Cowan <cowan@x>, scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>*In-reply-to*: <87mwx7smo3.fsf@tines.lan>*References*: <878v8z5iq8.fsf@tines.lan> <874njn5b65.fsf@tines.lan> <20121215204015.GG13463@mercury.ccil.org> <87obhv3ts0.fsf@tines.lan> <20121215231548.GC10312@mercury.ccil.org> <87bodu4r0r.fsf@tines.lan> <20121216041031.GE10312@mercury.ccil.org> <87pq25yh5s.fsf@tines.lan> <20121219221955.GH4477@mercury.ccil.org> <87d2y5y6fb.fsf@tines.lan> <20121221055315.GB28661@mercury.ccil.org> <87y5grsrvm.fsf@tines.lan> <CAOLEvS0hcjUBkwZnYSf6oZhqLSrKChm0Gc4bv_WkWk+XTSO4hQ@mail.gmail.com> <87mwx7smo3.fsf@tines.lan>

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Mark H Weaver <mhw@x> wrote:

R6RS and R7RS-draft-8 require that (eqv? +0.0 -0.0) => #f

R6RS says eqv? should behave like =.

Within the spec, there is no mention of the required behavior of comparative procedures, then only mention is:

These predicates must be transitive.

(let ((x +0.0)

(y -0.0))

(map (lambda (op)

(list (op x y) (op x y)))

(list = > <)))

=> ((#t #t) (#f #f) (#f #f))

On IronScheme, which I (not being a numerical analyst) believe to be transitive[0].

Thus the behavior on IronScheme is still strictly correct for R6RS conformance.

Am I wrong?

Cheers

leppie

http://codeplex.com/IronScheme

http://xacc.wordpress.com

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

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*leppie <xacc.ide@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**References**:**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*John Cowan <cowan@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*leppie <xacc.ide@x>

**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0***From:*Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0** - Index(es):