Alan Watson wrote: > John Cowan wrote: >> I think the problem can be removed by adding the words >> "other than eq?" to the end. > > I agree. > > I think there is also a problem with this part: > > "Note: The eqv? procedure returning #t when obj1 and obj2 are number > objects does not imply that = would also return #t when called with obj1 > and obj2 as arguments." > > Unless I am very much mistaken, I think both instances of #t in this > statement should be #f.
I am very much mistaken; I had forgotten about NaNs. However, I think this might be better put as: "Note: The value returned by the eqv? procedure when obj1 and obj2 are number objects need not be the same as the value returned by the = procedure when called with obj1 and obj2 as arguments." This includes cases in which eqv? returns #t but = returns #f (which might be the case if both objects are NaNs) and cases in which eqv? returns #f but = returns #t (e.g., if obj1 is an exact 0 and obj2 is an inexact 0). Regards, Alan _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
