On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Mark H Weaver <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Indeed, you distinguished yourself as the _sole_ member of the working > group who voted for (eqv? +0.0 -0.0) => #true even for IEEE-754 floating > point numbers, thus demonstrating a lack of understanding of what 'eqv?' > is for. > With that in mind, it is not surprising that you do not see this as a > serious flaw. > I understand the issues perfectly, I just have a different opinion of what eqv? is for, and in my votes have very consistently resisted changes to R5RS all around. I think -0.0 is a hideous wart that in a good implementation would not even exist (underflow should instead promote to a higher precision representation) and the notion that = and eqv? disagree is anathema to me. But since you've resorted to personal attacks I no longer have any interest in what you say. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
