Alan Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The description of eqv? in 11.5 leaves its behaviour partially > unspecified when given two NaNs. It can return #t or #f. > > However, if I use put-datum and get-datum to write and read a NaN, the > result has to be equal? to the original NaN. Since equal? and eqv? are > identical for number objects, this means that the result has to be eqv? > to the original NaN. > > Are the editors happy with this additional restriction on the behaviour > of eqv? with NaNs?
Yes, but the tightening of the spec of `put-datum' was premature, I believe, and needs to be suitably weakened. Good catch! -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
