On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Mark H Weaver <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Most importantly, 'eqv?' is now completely unspecified for non-real > inexact numbers. The R6RS used the operational equivalence language for > _all_ inexact numbers, but here you have restricted those clauses to the > inexact reals. > Sorry, the editors are very, very tired and missed this. I will restore the definition to refer to all inexact numbers. > This wording also does not address the many known problems with the R6RS > definition, such as the NaN problem that you discovered I misread the definition - I thought it had included my NaN fix but it didn't, I'll restore that as well. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
