Re: Quantities are Singletons?

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:19:13AM +0100, Matthias Radestock wrote:
> >Note however the following:
> >
> >#;> (equal? 5 5.0)
> >#t
> >#;> (eqv? 5 5.0)
> >#f
> >#;>
> >
> >Is the result for equal? not a bug?  R5RS defines equal? as recursively
> >processing pairs, vectors, and string, using eqv? to compare things like
> >numbers.
> 
> That looks like a bug. You are right that equal? for numbers is supposed 
> to be the same as eqv?. According to the standard, eqv? on numbers is #f 
> if they are of different exactness, and the result of = otherwise. I 
> believe SISCs numeric equal? is the same as = and hence misses the first 
> condition.

I believe I've fixed this in CVS.  I'm also working on fixing handling 
of infinities at the moment, so 1.9 will have a few math related bug 
fixes.  Unfortunately, I'll be out of town all next week.

	Scott

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA7UbIr9IW4v3mHtQRAqA2AJsFWRnJje+yYid/FH+cuFF0Oz1pHwCggmkz
Q+n2ZqBvwpBJsKwsfDfsSXo=
=FzgS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----