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

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

will@x scripsit:

> 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.
(I'm arguing on the IETF JSON list that what Doug Crockford now says
he meant in the RFC is irrelevant; only what he actually said matters.)

-- 
John Cowan <cowan@x>             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
It's like if you meet an really old, really rich guy covered in liver
spots and breathing with an oxygen tank, and you say, "I want to be
rich, too, so I'm going to start walking with a cane and I'm going to
act crotchety and I'm going to get liver disease. --Wil Shipley

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