On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 09:01 PM, Alex Shinn wrote: > > In particular, the issue [Mark Weaver] bring up was already voted on > > twice. The definition of eqv? has historically been strongly > > contended, and there is simply no way to make everyone > > happy on this point. > > No doubt, but for the record I agree with Mark that the specification in > the latest draft is plain weird - if not wrong. It gives the "right" > result > for inexact real numbers conforming to the IEEE 754-2008 standard, assuming > by "right" we intend something vague like "operationally equivalent". For > example two numbers with different precisions may be = but not eqv? - but > *only* if the numbers conform to the IEEE 754-2008 standard, and not for > any other kind of inexact reals. > > So if R7RS is finalized with the current wording, for anyone is Mark's > position, I suggest you just document the discrepancy in your documentation > and do the right thing. > > However, my suggestion to the editors would be to remove the 2 sections > about inexact real numbers that do not conform to IEEE 754-2008, and > leave this unspecified. > I think having (eqv? 1.0 1.0) be unspecified would be even weirder. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
