[r6rs-discuss] Re: [Formal] eq?/eqv? misbehave around NaNs

[Jens Axel Søgaard]

Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk skrev:
> John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> writes:
> 
>>> Is there any scenario where you'd want anything other than:
>>>
>>> (eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0) => #t
>> Eqv? on unboxed floats can be implemented by bitwise comparison
>> rather than floating-point equality.
> 
> And this is why it should be #t.

There is more than one bit-pattern for +nan.0.

-- 
Jens Axel Søgaard