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

From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak>
Date: Fri Nov 24 03:52:54 2006

Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum_at_cs.indiana.edu> writes:

>> 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. They hold for Eq-comparable things
> (mutable objects and closures, iirc). For numbers, eq? is
> meaningless and therefore cannot imply anything.

Ok, but (eqv? x x) should be always #t.

-- 
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak_at_knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
Received on Fri Nov 24 2006 - 03:52:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Oct 23 2024 - 09:15:00 UTC