On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:35 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the matter of the definition of `eqv?` on inexact numbers, I > have voted for `r6rs` (operational equivalence), `representational` > (representational, i.e., bitwise equivalence), and `r5rs` (numerical > equality as in `=`) in that order. Note that `eqv?` will remain > unspecified on two NaNs no matter how this vote comes out. I've voted this way: - representational, r6rs, r5rs Rationale: The representational definition clearly and concretely defines what an implementer should do to implement eqv? for inexact numbers, which makes it better than the r6rs option, and it takes into account issues like precision, which makes it better than the r5rs option. The r6rs option is better than the r5rs option for the same reason. Thus my ordering of preferences.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
