[R6RS] "read/write equivalence"

Michael Sperber sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
Sat Jun 30 11:28:21 EDT 2007

"R. Kent Dybvig" <dyb at cs.indiana.edu> writes:

>> Alan Watson correctly pointed out that it's impossible to require this
>> in a sensible way, essentially because of
>> (eqv? +nan.0 nan+0) => unspecified
>> I've weakened to spec of `put-datum' accordingly, essentially by
>> changing the "must" to a "should".
> Why not say "must" and list +nan.0 as an exception?  "should" is too
> strong because it slaps the hands of an implementation that has two
> representations for NaN, and "should" is too weak because it opens the
> door for all kinds of other exceptions.

Can you suggest a wording?

Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

More information about the R6RS mailing list