[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:
> We haven't generally made a distinction for a result being
> "implementation-defined", simply saying "unspecified." Thus
> with either the R3RS or current R7RS, for the specific question
> (= 0.0 -0.0) => ?
> the ? would be written "unspecified".
Where by "=" I of course mean "eqv?".
Scheme-reports mailing list