[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(EQL -0.0 +0.0) => NIL
- To: common-lisp @ SU-AI
- Subject: (EQL -0.0 +0.0) => NIL
- From: Kent M. Pitman <KMP @ MIT-MC>
- Date: Sun, 03 Jul 1983 18:54:00 -0000
I definitely support the arguments presented in ALAN's note for making
(EQL -0.0 +0.0) return NIL. Any other interpretation would pretty much
destroy the useful properties of EQL's semantics.
I would definitely also want
(EQUAL '(DEFUN FOO () -0.0) '(DEFUN FOO () +0.0))
to return NIL.
Perhaps changing the wording on p56 to "numbers of the same type with the
same sign and magnitude" and omitting the reference to "=" would do; or
would this not be appropriately general to complexes?