[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] (eqv? 1+2i 3+4i) should be explicitly #f

[John Cowan]

---
This message is a formal comment which was submitted to formal-comment at r6rs.org, following the requirements described at: http://www.r6rs.org/process.html
---
Submitter: John Cowan
Email address: cowan at ccil.org
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.


-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan at ccil.org
Mr. Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty.  --Oscar Wilde