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

From: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum>
Date: Thu Nov 23 17:58:02 2006

On Nov 23, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Alan Watson wrote:

> Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
>>> I think it is important to not break:
>>> (eq? x x) implies (eqv? x x)
>>> and:
>>> (let ((x expr)) (eq? x x))
>> These are not axioms in Scheme.
>
> I think the first is, at least for numbers. For numbers, eq?
> returns true only when eqv? returns true (see the second paragraph
> of the description of eq?). So, for numbers, (eq? x x) does indeed
> imply (eqv? x x). (Or I have misunderstood something fundamental
> here.)

I guess I was reading Per's statement somewhat backwards. Thanks.

Aziz,,,
Received on Thu Nov 23 2006 - 17:57:44 UTC