On Mon 31 Jan 2011 20:53, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > Given that everyone agrees that `eqv?' must distinguish 0 from 0.0, it > is already not useful as a numerical `='. Any program that uses it this > way is asking for trouble. Therefore, I don't have qualms about keeping > our existing behavior, namely that (eqv? 0.0 -0.0) returns #f. > > What do you think?
This sounds OK to me. I don't have a horse in the race, but the argument that (eqv? 0 0.0) => #f is convincing, especially given the 0.0-or-0 games that many procedures are allowed to play. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
