On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote: > > By all means, but the ballot item was unclear and > will require a re-vote. In the meantime, the draft > we submit with the call for formal comments will > need to revert to either R5RS (unspecified) or R6RS.
Sorry, still catching up on this. The R5RS description of `eqv?' is completely unambiguous in requiring the "different" semantics. R6RS loosened the semantics slightly to make NaN `eqv?' comparisons unspecified. Neither the "same" semantics (used only by SCM) nor the "same*" semantics are described by any standard. Pending a re-vote I'll change the draft to the unspecified (R6RS) semantics, and urge people to vote for this. As I stated in my rationale, this is the de facto standard anyway. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
