Re: [Chicken-users] EQV? and NaN

[Felix]

> I'd like to propose a minor change to the semantics of EQV?.  For good
> reasons, = returns #f if either argument is NaN, and currently EQV?
> defers to = if both its arguments are numeric.  However, conceptually
> EQV? is about "sameness" rather than "equality", and all NaNs are
> conceptually "the same".
> 
> Therefore, I think Chicken should be changed so that (eqv? +nan.0
> +nan.0) => #t.  All existing Schemes that support NaN at all already do
> this, with the exception of SISC, which bizarrely returns #t if *either*
> argument is NaN.

"(eqv? +nan +nan)" being #t would mean violation of R5RS. 

What's next, John? Make "(number? +nan)" return false?


cheers,
felix