On Mon 31 Jan 2011 20:53, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
Given that everyone agrees that `eqv?' must distinguish 0 from 0.0, it
is already not useful as a numerical `='. Any program that uses it this
way is asking for trouble. Therefore, I don't have qualms about keeping
our existing
An issue has come to my attention that deserves wider discussion.
Since at least Guile 1.8, (= 0.0 -0.0) has returned #t
but (eqv? 0.0 -0.0) has returned #f, and this is still the case.
PLT Scheme agrees with us that (eqv? 0.0 -0.0) is #f, but MIT/GNU Scheme,
SCM, Chicken, and Gauche all return
From:Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org
To:guile-devel@gnu.org
Cc:Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com; Taylor R Campbell campb...@mumble.net
Sent:Monday, January 31, 2011 11:53 AM
Subject:Equality predicates, signed zeroes, R5RS and R6RS
An issue has come to my attention that deserves wider discussion.
From:Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org
To:Mike Gran spk...@yahoo.com
Cc:guile-devel@gnu.org guile-devel@gnu.org
Sent:Monday, January 31, 2011 2:42 PM
Subject:Re: Equality predicates, signed zeroes, R5RS and R6RS
Mike Gran spk...@yahoo.com writes:
As an aside, as of a couple of months ago
