Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate

[will@x]

John Cowan quoting me:

> > That example was *not* intended to say eq? and eqv? must behave
> > the same on procedures.  How do I know?  Because Jonathan Rees
> > and I worked together on this.  
> 
> I see that now.  But as a general point, standards (like other legal
> codes) don't mean what their authors mean them to mean.  What the
> author says has a peculiar interest, but not a peculiar authority.

Agreed.  My digression wouldn't have been necessary if you had
based your interpretation on what prior standards actually said,
instead of trying to infer intent from a couple of examples.

Once you move into the land of intent, authors' intentions become
relevant.

Will

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