Per Bothner scripsit:

> However, if Obj1 is 1.0f0 and Obj2 is 1.0e0, which are floating-point
> numbers with different precisions, then I would expect this to apply:
>
>    Obj1 and obj2 yield different 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.

That is exactly why I said that Kawa's behavior conforms to R6RS.

> My reading of R6RS suggests "may" is the case.  Regardless, the lack of
> specification is a bug in R6RS, which I hope R7RS will fix.
> (eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0) ==> #t is the only result that is compatible
> with "the spirit" of eqv? as I understand it.

I agree; ticket #229 attempts to make it so.

--
Newbies always ask:                             John Cowan
  "Elements or attributes?                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Which will serve me best?"                      cowan@ccil.org
  Those who know roar like lions;
  Wise hackers smile like tigers.                   --a tanka, or extended haiku

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