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

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence

To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>
Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:12:15 +0900
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@x>, scheme-reports@x
In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYMiA1CHg7mS31qiB=PAXMHsW1T8dZW5EZjJXPz9utj9Dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87zk9jor6s.fsf@netris.org> <20120507213136.GA12719@mercury.ccil.org> <8762c7o8we.fsf@netris.org> <CAMMPzYMjv1jbMFAvzB7fQqbf69uCZg-0+Nwz-Nq+7Jrtd6QMUQ@mail.gmail.com> <87wr4nmo7f.fsf@netris.org> <CAMMPzYN4PYXfjQOO3dhGXqKA1NHjuQD4JwK3ozUkXdDCqDbSvQ@mail.gmail.com> <87sjfbmfop.fsf@netris.org> <CAMMPzYMiA1CHg7mS31qiB=PAXMHsW1T8dZW5EZjJXPz9utj9Dw@mail.gmail.com>

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?".

-- 
Alex

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

References:
- [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>

Prev by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
Next by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
Previous by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
Next by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread