Opened 5 years ago

Closed 5 years ago

#460 closed defect (fixed)

semantics of eqv?

Reported by: alexshinn Owned by: cowan
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: WG1 - Core Keywords:
Cc:

Description

Earlier we voted on #125, #229 and #345 separately
without regard to the formal semantics of eqv?
from a top level. We need to first decide what the
definition of eqv? is, and consider if there should
be any exception cases as a secondary effect.

Note the result of this ticket will also answer formal
comment #423.

Change History (3)

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

  • Status changed from new to decided

WG1 voted to adopt the same-bits equivalence:

  (3.1) obj1 and obj2 are both exact numbers and are numerically
  equal (see `=`)

  (3.2) obj1 and obj2 are both inexact real numbers conforming to the
  IEEE 754-2008 standard, and they have the same radix,
  precision, maximum exponent, sign, exponent, and significand as
  described in IEEE 754-2008

  (3.3) obj1 and obj2 are both inexact real numbers, are not implemented using
  IEEE 754-2008, and are numerically equal (see `=`)

  (3.4) obj1 and obj2 are both complex numbers whose real and imaginary
  parts are `eqv?`

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

  • Owner changed from alexshinn to cowan
  • Status changed from decided to writing

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by cowan

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from writing to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.