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

[Abdulaziz Ghuloum]

On Nov 23, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Alan Watson wrote:

> Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
>>> I think it is important to not break:
>>>   (eq? x x) implies (eqv? x x)
>>> and:
>>>   (let ((x expr)) (eq? x x))
>> These are not axioms in Scheme.
>
> I think the first is, at least for numbers. For numbers, eq?  
> returns true only when eqv? returns true (see the second paragraph  
> of the description of eq?). So, for numbers, (eq? x x) does indeed  
> imply (eqv? x x). (Or I have misunderstood something fundamental  
> here.)

I guess I was reading Per's statement somewhat backwards.  Thanks.

Aziz,,,