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  cowan@ccil.org  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
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports