On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Mark H Weaver <[email protected]> wrote:
> John Cowan <[email protected]> writes: > > > How about this compromise: simply remove the clause defining `eqv?` on > > non-IEEE flonums? It is arguably not a proper domain for standardization > > anyway, since there are no such implementations today. That would allow > > future implementations to return `#t` or `#f` at their discretion. > > This would be *vastly* better than the current situation. If it's the > best we can hope for, then _please_ do this. This would make it very > likely that implementations would correctly extrapolate the definition > of 'eqv?' to other representations. > This has been mentioned multiple times, and I think would be vastly inferior to the current situation. It means that eqv? is basically unspecified on inexacts - you couldn't even rely on (eqv? 1.0 1.0) => #t. It's also semantically different from what we voted on, meaning it would require a re-vote, whereas my proposal isn't. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
