I am not a native English speaker, nor a master of English in any way, but I'll give my hopefully-not-too-personal opinion.
John Cowan <[email protected]> writes: > obj_1 and obj_2 are both inexact numbers such that they are > numerically equal (in the sense of =) and they yield the same > results (in the sense of eqv?) when passed as arguments to any > other procedure that can be defined as a finite composition of > Scheme’s standard arithmetic procedures which does not result > in a NaN value. I'm OK with this, regarding language. > Note that the behavior of eqv? where either argument is NaN and the > other argument is inexact is deliberately left unspecified. Is this a typo? Both the wording and the examples in draft 9 seem to indicate that for one NaN and one inexact, the result is #f; and for two NaNs it is unspecified. I'll continue on that assumption. > obj_1 and obj_2 are both inexact numbers such that either they > are not both NaN and are numerically unequal (in the sense of =), > or they do not yield the same results (in the sense of eqv?) when > passed as arguments to any other procedure that can be defined as > a finite composition of Scheme’s standard arithmetic procedures > which does not result in a NaN value. I would move the two-NaNs situation to a side-note of some sort: obj_1 and obj_2 are both inexact numbers such that they are numerically unequal (in the sense of =) or they do not yield the same results (in the sense of eqv?) when passed as arguments to any other procedure that can be defined as a finite composition of Scheme’s standard arithmetic procedures which does not result in a NaN value. As an exception, the behavior of eqv? is unspecified when both obj_1 and obj_2 are a NaN value. Taylan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
