[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Call for editorial assistance
I am not a native English speaker, nor a master of English in any way,
but I'll give my hopefully-not-too-personal opinion.
John Cowan <cowan@x> writes:
> obj_1 and obj_2 are both inexact numbers such that they are
> numerically equal (in the sense of =) and they 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.
I'm OK with this, regarding language.
> 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.
> obj_1 and obj_2 are both inexact numbers such that either they
> are not both NaN and 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.
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.
Taylan
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports