Alex Shinn scripsit: > This has been mentioned multiple times, and I think would be vastly > inferior to the current situation. It means that eqv? is basically > unspecified on inexacts - you couldn't even rely on (eqv? 1.0 1.0) => #t.
Sure you could, on an IEEE-ish-flonum-inexact implementation, which is to say all of them (at present). -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan And now here I was, in a country where a right to say how the country should be governed was restricted to six persons in each thousand of its population. For the nine hundred and ninety-four to express dissatisfaction with the regnant system and propose to change it, would have made the whole six shudder as one man, it would have been so disloyal, so dishonorable, such putrid black treason. --Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
