Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0

[leppie <xacc.ide@x>]

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

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation

--
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