[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Implied equality
- To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Implied equality
- From: Biep <scheme@x>
- Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:44:35 +0100
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYPSnYC8fWKit844AhD8KKxAKx6Aa9Q-=qEYeVxspCAx7w@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <646005380.190332.1356182404191.JavaMail.email@example.com> <CAMMPzYPSnYC8fWKit844AhD8KKxAKx6Aa9Q-=qEYeVxspCAx7w@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 10:20 PM, I wondered:
> What is the equality/equivalence implied by the re-use of an argument name? Did I overlook that in the draft? I think it ought to be stated somewhere.
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 17:12:16 +0100 Alex Shinn replied:
> The => notation is described in section 1.3.4,
> and reads as "evaluates to".
> It is not defined formally,
> but goes on to say:
> [expression] evaluates, in the initial environment,
> to an object that can be represented externally
> by the sequence of characters [result]
> so one can assume
> the objects must be written the same.
But in that case the equations for make-polar are false, aren't they? z may be exact on input and inexact on output.
Scheme-reports mailing list