I am not a native English speaker, nor a master of English in any way,
but I'll give my hopefully-not-too-personal opinion.

John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

>     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.

I'm OK with this, regarding language.

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

Is this a typo?  Both the wording and the examples in draft 9 seem to
indicate that for one NaN and one inexact, the result is #f; and for two
NaNs it is unspecified.  I'll continue on that assumption.

>     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.

I would move the two-NaNs situation to a side-note of some sort:

     obj_1 and obj_2 are both inexact numbers such that they 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.  As an exception, the behavior of eqv? is unspecified
     when both obj_1 and obj_2 are a NaN value.

Taylan

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