| From: Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Date: 22 Mar 2006 01:52:40 +0200
|
| Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| Aubrey Jaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| Because (= 0.0 -0.0) is #t, (eqv? 0.0 -0.0) must be #t.
|
| Ah dear, thanks. Bit too much creativity with the
Aubrey Jaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SRFI-77 is the most preliminary of proposals, and guaranteed to be
withdrawn.
Yep. Seems to me the idea of base r5rs is reasonably clear (not
crystal clear, but near enough) that eqv? is the same as = on numbers.
Keeps the heirarchy of comparisons clean
Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Aubrey Jaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because (= 0.0 -0.0) is #t, (eqv? 0.0 -0.0) must be #t.
Ah dear, thanks. Bit too much creativity with the nans and infs.
Hmm. I think SRFI 77 (Preliminary Proposal for R6RS Arithmetic) would
require (eqv? 0.0
bash-2.05b$ guile --version
Guile 1.8.0 ...
bash-2.05b$ guile
guile (= 0.0 -0.0)
#t
guile (eqv? 0.0 -0.0)
#f
According to R5RS section 6.1 Equivalence predicates:
The `eqv?' procedure returns #t if:
* OBJ1 and OBJ2 are both numbers, are numerically equal (see
`=', section
Aubrey Jaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because (= 0.0 -0.0) is #t, (eqv? 0.0 -0.0) must be #t.
Ah dear, thanks. Bit too much creativity with the nans and infs.
___
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
