On 11/25/2012 06:07 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
> The WG decided to make eqv? unspecified for NaNs
> independently of the eqv? semantics.  Unless you are
> doing so now, no member of the community has made
> any objection to this decision.

No objection.  I think it is a good idea for an implementation
to use the same-bits test, but it doesn't have to be a requirement.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

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