[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] Formal Response to #423: When does eqv? return #t for procedures?
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] Formal Response to #423: When does eqv? return #t for procedures?
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:06:14 -0500
After a vote by the WG recorded at
<http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/WG1Ballot6Results>, the WG affirmed its
previous stance, allowing implementations of `eqv?` to return either `#t`
or `#f` on procedures. The WG further voted to allow `eq?` to return `#f`
on procedures even if `eqv?` returns `#t` on the same procedures.
This provides the maximum flexibility for implementers to duplicate
and/or merge procedures as seems desirable. However, it is still
guaranteed that if two procedures are operationally distinguishable,
`eqv?` must return `#f` on them.
Therefore, the Formal Comment is rejected.
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
thou hast given away: cowan@x
That thou wast born with.
Scheme-reports mailing list