Re: [Scheme-reports] clarification of proposal for eqv?/eq? on procedures

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> Unfortunately, not using eqv? to define eq? on procedures becomes
> clumsy.  A potential specification is as follows, though I'm open to
> suggestions for improvement:

A possible improvement (which should not be taken to mean that I favor
this idea) is to say that on procedures, `eq?` must return `#t` when
`eqv?` must return `#t`, and must return `#f` whenever `eqv?` actually
does return `#f`, but may return `#f` in cases where `eqv?` may return
either `#t` or `#f` but in fact returns `#t`.

But as I said, I would rather leave `eq?` and `eqv?` tied together, and
allow a switch or declaration to break the link in this way if an
implementation wants to provide one.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@x  http://ccil.org/~cowan
In computer science, we stand on each other's feet.
        --Brian K. Reid

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