Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence

Show/hide message thread

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence John Cowan (07 May 2012 21:32 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence Mark H Weaver (07 May 2012 23:44 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence Alex Shinn (08 May 2012 00:43 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence Mark H Weaver (08 May 2012 01:56 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence Alex Shinn (08 May 2012 03:23 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence Mark H Weaver (08 May 2012 05:00 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence Alex Shinn (08 May 2012 22:45 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence Alex Shinn (08 May 2012 23:12 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence John Cowan (08 May 2012 06:57 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence Andrew Robbins (08 May 2012 15:21 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence Alex Shinn 08 May 2012 23:12 UTC

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We haven't generally made a distinction for a result being
> "implementation-defined", simply saying "unspecified."  Thus
> with either the R3RS or current R7RS, for the specific question
>
>  (= 0.0 -0.0) => ?
>
> the ? would be written "unspecified".

Where by "=" I of course mean "eqv?".

--
Alex

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