[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: R7RS 'eqv?' cannot be used for reliable memoization
John Cowan <cowan@x> writes:
> How about this compromise: simply remove the clause defining `eqv?` on
> non-IEEE flonums? It is arguably not a proper domain for standardization
> anyway, since there are no such implementations today. That would allow
> future implementations to return `#t` or `#f` at their discretion.
This would be *vastly* better than the current situation. If it's the
best we can hope for, then _please_ do this. This would make it very
likely that implementations would correctly extrapolate the definition
of 'eqv?' to other representations.
> I have changed "conforming to" to "implemented in the style of",
> which I think eliminates that problem.
This is also helpful. Thanks.
Scheme-reports mailing list