[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] R7RS draft 8 available
Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> writes:
> This includes typos and changes suggested
> by the community from the 7th draft, as well
> as changing the definition of eqv? on inexact
> numbers to the style of R6RS operational
Thank you for revisiting 'eqv?'. I am pleased with the new semantics.
However, there are some serious flaws in the precise wording.
Most importantly, 'eqv?' is now completely unspecified for non-real
inexact numbers. The R6RS used the operational equivalence language for
_all_ inexact numbers, but here you have restricted those clauses to the
This wording also does not address the many known problems with the R6RS
definition, such as the NaN problem that you discovered, the
circularity, and several other problems which were addressed by my
definition. It would be better if these problems were fixed somehow,
but I don't care enough to push this issue any further.
Anyway, thanks again for your work on the R7RS.
Scheme-reports mailing list