Per Bothner scripsit:
> Agreed. I'd argue for "#t iff the bit patterns being compared are the
> same". Not necessarily that R6RS shoudl require this, but it might
> suggest/recommend this for implementations using IEEE floating-point.
So for the purposes of the standard, we are agreed that eqv? on a NaN
and another flonum may return either #t or #f? That is the status quo,
since eqv? may return #t where = would return #f.
> >The former method works, but the latter does not: given two Doubles
> >representing NaNs, Double.equals will return false.
>
> That is incorrect:
>
> $ bin/kawa
> #|kawa:1|# (define NaN java.lang.Double:NaN)
> #|kawa:2|# (NaN:equals NaN)
> #t
Quite right; there was a bug in my code.
--
John Cowan cowan_at_ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?
Received on Wed Sep 20 2006 - 14:31:45 UTC