[r6rs-discuss] Re: [Formal] eq?/eqv? misbehave around NaNs

From: Alan Watson <alan>
Date: Thu Nov 23 15:48:28 2006

Per Bothner wrote:
> Is there any scenario where you'd want anything other than:
>
> (eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0) => #t

If inexacts are unboxed and +nan.0 has only one representation, then the
implementor can most simply implement eqv? on inexacts with a bitwise
comparison. In this case, you get #t.

If inexacts are boxed, then the implementor can most simply implement
eqv? on inexacts with a numerical comparison. In this case, you get #f.

Regards,

Alan
Received on Thu Nov 23 2006 - 15:46:59 UTC