On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Mark H Weaver <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alex Shinn <[email protected]> writes: > > > Thank you for the well reasoned formal comment. Note > > > > the formal comment period ended June 30, > > For the record, lest anyone believe that I waited too long > to bring this up, I first raised this issue here on May 7: > > > http://lists.scheme-reports.org/pipermail/scheme-reports/2012-May/002153.html > > > and we've > > published a draft which many people are now reviewing and > > will be used for the ratification vote. I will discuss with the WG, > > but it is unlikely we would consider such a change at this late time. > > What is the purpose of allowing people to review a draft if you are > unwilling to fix serious flaws such as this? If a serious flaw turned up even at this late stage we would address it. I do not consider this a serious flaw. I dislike it and voted against it, but it's a reasonable specification of eqv?. First, the implementation strategy you suggest is only hypothetical. Although I agree MPFR is a worthwhile target, no such implementations exist yet. Actual working code speaks much louder than ideas. Second, the only potential difference between the current draft and your proposal is with -0.0, which does not mathematically exist. One can argue that the MPRF implementation of -0.0 is an implementation of the IEEE 754 value, and so you can treat this the same without even a disclaimer. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
