[CM] Bug with sort

[Norman Gray]

Bill and all, hello.

On 27 Aug 2025, at 0:34, bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU wrote:

> eq? is almost useless.  It always pleases me for
> some reason that (eq? +nan.0 +nan.0) is #t, but
> (eqv? +nan.0 +nan.0) is #f.

Is that allowed?

R5RS says:

> Eq?’s behavior on numbers
> and characters is implementation-dependent, but it will al-
> ways return either true or false, and will return true only
> when eqv? would also return true.

and R7RS

> [Eq?] must always return #f when eqv?
> also would, but may return #f in some cases where eqv?
> would return #t.

That seems to suggest that eq? may be false when eqv? is true, but not the other way around.

Best wishes,

Norman


-- 
Norman Gray  :  https://nxg.me.uk