leppie <xacc.ide@gmail.com> writes:
> IronScheme: (#t #t #t #f #f #t)
>
> Will have to investigate, other than knowing (eqv? -0.0 0.0) => #t in
> IronScheme.

Assuming that +0.0 and -0.0 are not operationally equivalent (they
aren't in IEEE 754 because their reciprocals are +inf.0 and -inf.0),
both R6RS and R7RS-draft-8 require that (eqv? +0.0 -0.0) => #f,
which in turn means that the first three results should be #f.

Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with these results.

The two false results in the fourth and fifth tests are correct given
that IronScheme supports mixed-exactness complex numbers in the special
case where the real part is inexact and the imaginary part is an exact
zero.  This is highly desirable, IMO.

      Mark

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports