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

[Michael Sperber]

John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> writes:

> 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:

I don't see the recursion as a problem in this case, as the base cases
are covered by the axiomatic specification.

> 	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.

Why would this be an improvement?  It seems pretty hairy compared to
the intuitive spec we currently have.

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