On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/25/2012 04:07 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > > * Significant change: Fix the NaN problem by making sure that > > two numbers can only be /substantially different/ if at > > least one of them is numerically equal to itself. > > IMO this does the wrong thing if you have two different NaN values, > as allowed by IEEE. Neither is numerically equal to itself, > but they have different bit-patterns, and eqv? should compare > them as false. > The WG decided to make eqv? unspecified for NaNs independently of the eqv? semantics. Unless you are doing so now, no member of the community has made any objection to this decision. We have no basis for re-opening the ticket regarding NaNs, and changing it now would only break R5RS and R6RS compatibility while alienating many members of the community. Even discussing it would likely take valuable time away from the issue many people actually are unhappy with, the (non-NaN) semantics of eqv?. This is not to dismiss NaNs or say they are unimportant, but that it is no longer useful to discuss the matter for R7 small. People who are interested in this should take it up in future standards. Regarding the general eqv? case, a private polling of the WG members has so far shown that while every member seems to want a re-vote, not a single member is interested in changing his vote. However, some members are flexible about small variations within their broad semantics. So I'm going to re-open this ticket in a 9th ballot in the hopes that we can at least get a same-bits variation that makes people happier. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
