Scheme language standardization process
On 11/11/2012 09:01 PM, Alex Shinn wrote: > In particular, the issue [Mark Weaver] bring up was already voted on > twice. The definition of eqv? has historically been strongly > contended, and there is simply no way to make everyone > happy on this point. No doubt, but for the record I agree with Mark that the specification in the latest draft is plain weird - if not wrong. It gives the "right" result for inexact real numbers conforming to the IEEE 754-2008 standard, assuming by "right" we intend something vague like "operationally equivalent". For example two numbers with different precisions may be = but not eqv? - but *only* if the numbers conform to the IEEE 754-2008 standard, and not for any other kind of inexact reals. So if R7RS is finalized with the current wording, for anyone is Mark's position, I suggest you just document the discrepancy in your documentation and do the right thing. However, my suggestion to the editors would be to remove the 2 sections about inexact real numbers that do not conform to IEEE 754-2008, and leave this unspecified. -- --Per Bothner per@x http://per.bothner.com/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports