[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Call for editorial assistance
Taylan Ulrich B. scripsit:
> > Note that the behavior of eqv? where either argument is NaN and the
> > other argument is inexact is deliberately left unspecified.
> Is this a typo? Both the wording and the examples in draft 9 seem to
> indicate that for one NaN and one inexact, the result is #f; and for two
> NaNs it is unspecified. I'll continue on that assumption.
Yes, of course that's what I should have said.
> I would move the two-NaNs situation to a side-note of some sort:
> obj_1 and obj_2 are both inexact numbers such that they are
> numerically unequal (in the sense of =) or they do not yield the
> same results (in the sense of eqv?) when passed as arguments to any
> other procedure that can be defined as a finite composition of
> Scheme’s standard arithmetic procedures which does not result in a
> NaN value. As an exception, the behavior of eqv? is unspecified
> when both obj_1 and obj_2 are a NaN value.
Adopted, with the following edits:
for "they are" read "either they are"
for "which" read ", provided that" (and likewise in the
for "are a NaN value" (which might suggest that they have to be
the same NaN value) to "are NaN".
He played King Lear as though John Cowan <cowan@x>
someone had played the ace. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Scheme-reports mailing list