Re: Equality predicates, signed zeroes, R5RS and R6RS

[Andy Wingo]

On Mon 31 Jan 2011 20:53, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:

> Given that everyone agrees that `eqv?' must distinguish 0 from 0.0, it
> is already not useful as a numerical `='.  Any program that uses it this
> way is asking for trouble.  Therefore, I don't have qualms about keeping
> our existing behavior, namely that (eqv? 0.0 -0.0) returns #f.
>
> What do you think?

This sounds OK to me.  I don't have a horse in the race, but the
argument that (eqv? 0 0.0) => #f is convincing, especially given the
0.0-or-0 games that many procedures are allowed to play.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/