John Cowan <cowan_at_ccil.org> writes:
> So you are right that (eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0) is unspecified, but it's
> hardly obvious: it depends on noticing the word "rational" in the
> first criterion.
I'll add an example:
(eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0) => unspecified
Will this address your concern?
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Thu Nov 23 2006 - 13:46:27 UTC