Alan Watson <alan at alan-watson.org> writes:
> The description of eqv? in 11.5 leaves its behaviour partially
> unspecified when given two NaNs. It can return #t or #f.
>
> However, if I use put-datum and get-datum to write and read a NaN, the
> result has to be equal? to the original NaN. Since equal? and eqv? are
> identical for number objects, this means that the result has to be eqv?
> to the original NaN.
>
> Are the editors happy with this additional restriction on the behaviour
> of eqv? with NaNs?
Yes, but the tightening of the spec of `put-datum' was premature, I
believe, and needs to be suitably weakened.
Good catch!
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Sat Jun 30 2007 - 03:56:42 UTC