[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: EQV? on numbers should be based on operational equivalence

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:45 PM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:
Emmanuel Medernach scripsit:

> IMHO this is restrictive, having payload to be an exact non-negative
> integer (or a sequence of bits) precludes using it to store symbols
> if one (future) implementation wish to do so.

I suppose that's all right.

I have taken your remarks into account in the wiki page.
> Yes, one implementation may decide to always return the same old
> NaN. My point is that (nan) and +nan.0 should have the same behaviour:

What is the benefit of this?

I see it mostly as a consistency requirement. And to be able to distinguish between NaNs coming from different places.

About signaling NaNs, do we have to specify that the payload should be part of the exception signaled ?


Scheme-reports mailing list