Per Bothner scripsit: > However, if Obj1 is 1.0f0 and Obj2 is 1.0e0, which are floating-point > numbers with different precisions, then I would expect this to apply: > > Obj1 and obj2 yield different results (in the sense of > eqv?) when passed as arguments to any other procedure > that can be defined as a finite composition of > Scheme’s standard arithmetic procedures.
That is exactly why I said that Kawa's behavior conforms to R6RS. > My reading of R6RS suggests "may" is the case. Regardless, the lack of > specification is a bug in R6RS, which I hope R7RS will fix. > (eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0) ==> #t is the only result that is compatible > with "the spirit" of eqv? as I understand it. I agree; ticket #229 attempts to make it so. -- Newbies always ask: John Cowan "Elements or attributes? http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Which will serve me best?" [email protected] Those who know roar like lions; Wise hackers smile like tigers. --a tanka, or extended haiku _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
