Alex Shinn scripsit: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > By all means, but the ballot item was unclear and > > will require a re-vote. In the meantime, the draft > > we submit with the call for formal comments will > > need to revert to either R5RS (unspecified) or R6RS. > > Sorry, still catching up on this. The R5RS description > of `eqv?' is completely unambiguous in requiring the > "different" semantics.
Well, presuming that (= +nan.0 x) is #f for all x. > R6RS loosened the semantics slightly to make NaN > `eqv?' comparisons unspecified. (eqv? nan nan) and (eqv? nan nan2) are unspecified, but (eqv? nan not-nan) is specified as #f. -- He played King Lear as though John Cowan <[email protected]> someone had played the ace. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Eugene Field _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
