Mark H Weaver scripsit:

> This reversal poses onerous requirements on implementors, especially
> those who wish to support R6RS as well.

Indeed, the R6RS design put onerous requirements on those who wanted
to support both R5RS and R6RS, for this is not a place where R6RS
just tightened up vague R5RS language.  It was a substantive change
that WG1 first decided to accept, and then changed its mind about.

> For example, this reversal means that (max 1.0+0.0i 1.0-0.0i) is
> permitted, and the result is no longer uniquely determined.
> What should the result be?

I'd say it's correct to return either one, since they are =.

--
Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield],        John Cowan
one who looks with unconcern on a man           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
struggling for life in the water, and when      cowan@ccil.org
he has reached ground encumbers him with help?
        --Samuel Johnson

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