Re: bug in eqv?

[Kevin Ryde]

Aubrey Jaffer <address@hidden> writes:
>
> SRFI-77 is the most preliminary of proposals, and guaranteed to be
> withdrawn.

Yep.  Seems to me the idea of base r5rs is reasonably clear (not
crystal clear, but near enough) that eqv? is the same as = on numbers.
Keeps the heirarchy of comparisons clean too.

>  -- library procedure: equal? obj1 obj2
>      `Equal?' recursively compares the contents of pairs, vectors, and
>      strings, applying `eqv?' on other objects such as numbers and
>      symbols.  A rule of thumb is that objects are generally `equal?'
>      if they print the same.  `Equal?' may fail to terminate if its
>      arguments are circular data structures.
>
> If -0.0 and 0.0 print differently, then there is no support for 
> (equal? -0.0 0.0) ==> #t.

I would read it that equal? is supposed to be the same as eqv? on
numbers, and the bit about printing is only an aid to understanding
the recursion (and not a terribly helpful one really).