Bill and all, hello. On 27 Aug 2025, at 0:34, [email protected] wrote:
> eq? is almost useless. It always pleases me for > some reason that (eq? +nan.0 +nan.0) is #t, but > (eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0) is #f. Is that allowed? R5RS says: > Eq?’s behavior on numbers > and characters is implementation-dependent, but it will al- > ways return either true or false, and will return true only > when eqv? would also return true. and R7RS > [Eq?] must always return #f when eqv? > also would, but may return #f in some cases where eqv? > would return #t. That seems to suggest that eq? may be false when eqv? is true, but not the other way around. Best wishes, Norman -- Norman Gray : https://nxg.me.uk _______________________________________________ Cmdist mailing list [email protected] https://cm-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist
