[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] final draft of the R7RS small language

Thanks to all who worked on this.  Congratulations.

The latter half of this prose in eq? entry is the addition in this draft (p.31):

    The eq? procedure is similar to eqv? except that in some 
    cases it is capable of discerning distinctions finer than those
    detectable by eqv?. It must always return #f when eq? also 
    would, but may return #f in some cases where eq? would
    return #t.

Does the subject "it" in the second sentense means 'eqv?'?  I'm a bit
confused, for taking this "it" as `eq?' and replacing the two `eq?' in
the sentence for `eqv?' seems to make more sense, making the second
sentence augmenting the first sentence.

Does the new sentence specifically tell there's a case that (eq? a b) => #t but (eqv? a b) => #f?

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:
The 10th and final draft is available at:


This includes the changes from the 9th draft listed at


The only significant change was the reversal to the R5RS
semantics for eq? and eqv?, as discussed earlier on this
list.  Any further changes will be collected in a separate
errata document.

I'd like to thank the WG members for all their hard work
over the past three years, in particular John Cowan and
Arthur Gleckler.  I'd also like to thank the Steering Committee
for their guidance, and the editors of the R6RS, R5RS and
earlier reports, and SRFIs which form the basis of the report.

Mostly I'd like to thank the community for their constant
feedback.  We did our best to make everyone happy, and
no doubt fell short in some areas, but we're proud of the

The work is not over, of course.  WG2 is actively seeking
volunteers to help with standard libraries, which are using
the SRFI process.  If you wanted more say in the small
language, now is your chance to join in!


Scheme-reports mailing list

Scheme-reports mailing list