Alex Shinn scripsit: > We are actively fixing flaws, which so far have been limited > to minor editorial changes.
http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/SeventhDraftEditorialCorrections specifies these in general terms: details on request. > The problem with the eqv? issue is nobody agrees on the right > definition. Some people will be unhappy no matter what we specify. > I think it's a slightly odd spec only in that it ties us to IEEE 754, > but disagree that it's "broken" in any serious way. How about this compromise: simply remove the clause defining `eqv?` on non-IEEE flonums? It is arguably not a proper domain for standardization anyway, since there are no such implementations today. That would allow future implementations to return `#t` or `#f` at their discretion. I think this is at the outer limit of what can be done by editorial correction, but still barely possible. It is IMHO in the spirit of the "same-bits" proposal that the WG adopted. > We could of course revise the wording since some people find it > confusing, and say that the rule applies to something to the affect of > "IEEE or any approximation thereof". I have changed "conforming to" to "implemented in the style of", which I think eliminates that problem. > If there is anything else you'd like to bring up, please do so. > Better late than never. If there truly is a serious flaw we can make a > rush vote, but it will be too late once the ratification process starts. +1000 -- So they play that [tune] on John Cowan their fascist banjos, eh? [email protected] --Great-Souled Sam http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
