[Scheme-reports] Formal Response to #423: When does eqv? return #t for procedures?

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

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
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports