The editors have been struggling with a couple of passages in the
ninth draft that, while we believe them to be correct, are very hard
to understand.  We'd appreciate any help with wordsmithing them.

The passages are on page 30, and explain the behavior of `eqv?` on
inexact numbers.  Here they are:

    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.

    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.

Note that the behavior of eqv? where either argument is NaN and the
other argument is inexact is deliberately left unspecified.

While the first of these can be followed, though it's difficult, the
second can only be deciphered.  Any help in making these clearer without
changing their substance would be much appreciated.

--
John Cowan    cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Heckler: "Go on, Al, tell 'em all you know.  It won't take long."
Al Smith: "I'll tell 'em all we *both* know.  It won't take any longer."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scheme-reports-wg1" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scheme-reports-wg1+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.