Mark H Weaver scripsit: > This reversal poses onerous requirements on implementors, especially > those who wish to support R6RS as well.
Indeed, the R6RS design put onerous requirements on those who wanted to support both R5RS and R6RS, for this is not a place where R6RS just tightened up vague R5RS language. It was a substantive change that WG1 first decided to accept, and then changed its mind about. > For example, this reversal means that (max 1.0+0.0i 1.0-0.0i) is > permitted, and the result is no longer uniquely determined. > What should the result be? I'd say it's correct to return either one, since they are =. -- Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield], John Cowan one who looks with unconcern on a man http://www.ccil.org/~cowan struggling for life in the water, and when [email protected] he has reached ground encumbers him with help? --Samuel Johnson _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
