From: John Cowan
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 15:49:39 -0400
Subject: [Formal] (eqv? 1+2i 3+4i) should be explicitly #f

Submitter: John Cowan
Issue type: Defect
Priority: Minor
Component:  Base library
Report version: 5.93
Summary: (eqv? 1+2i 3+4i) should be made explicitly #f

Currently, (eqv? 1+2i 3+4i) is defined to be #f as a consequence of
the rule about "yield[ing] different results (in the sense of eqv?)
when passed as arguments to any other procedure".  This not only
appears to be recursive (eqv? is defined in terms of eqv?) but
the work it does can be covered by a rule such as this:

	Obj1 and obj2 are numbers such that = returns #f, at least one
	of obj1 and obj2 is non-real, and both the real and the imaginary
	parts of obj1 and obj2 are rational numbers.


RESPONSE:

The rule is indeed recursive, but still well-specified, and its
suggested replacement seems more complicated than the original.