On 11/25/2012 06:07 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
> The WG decided to make eqv? unspecified for NaNs
> independently of the eqv? semantics. Unless you are
> doing so now, no member of the community has made
> any objection to this decision.
No objection. I think it is a good idea for an implementation
to use the same-bits test, but it doesn't have to be a requirement.
--
--Per Bothner
[email protected] http://per.bothner.com/
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
