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

Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence

To: John Cowan <cowan@x>
Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
From: Emmanuel Medernach <emmanuel.medernach@x>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:54:40 +0200
Cc: scheme-reports@x, scheme-reports-wg2@x
In-reply-to: <20120607194343.GI12177@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <4FA99DF7.50000@bothner.com> <4FA9B028.5010306@sonic.net> <CAC_pKx_EzTHRehsHDOSqXqiC9MhZasY8Yf=G_5rVVWywjVGKsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC_pKx-8fdQjBiC6R4RuL1XhdvZ75Lma8ORQ5YdZaCqs_yCaAA@mail.gmail.com> <20120606184926.GA29088@mercury.ccil.org> <CAC_pKx94MuX1t_rHFFRWxnVrsG0+NwCesQboTjQiXVEtj66wjg@mail.gmail.com> <20120607184501.GB12177@mercury.ccil.org> <CAC_pKx9VcDLUuEWEWt6BASJsafVqp7LB7r_zeBBCWvuBpQdUwQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120607190859.GE12177@mercury.ccil.org> <CAC_pKx9r5YSoX4ca5X04oe5xFMr=C8x8U=xLOQ3ivM+o7V7hMQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120607194343.GI12177@mercury.ccil.org>

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:43 PM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:

In my opinion, providing a way to test for signaling NaNs is all we should do.

Thanks for the quote, I agree with you and have removed signaling NaN constructors from the wiki.

Cheers,

Emmanuel

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

References:
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Per Bothner <per@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Ray Dillinger <bear@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Emmanuel Medernach <emmanuel.medernach@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Emmanuel Medernach <emmanuel.medernach@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Emmanuel Medernach <emmanuel.medernach@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Emmanuel Medernach <emmanuel.medernach@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: Emmanuel Medernach <emmanuel.medernach@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence
  - From: John Cowan <cowan@x>

Prev by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Some comments after reading the r7rs public draft
Next by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Some comments after reading the r7rs public draft
Previous by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: 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