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

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> You seem intent that eq? and eqv? on procedures should
> not be tied to each other.  This is already so in the 9th draft,
> and no one is trying to revert this (I had earlier queried if it
> was really needed but immediately dropped the issue when
> I found there was opposition).

Actually, my change 1051 omitted reference to procedures; I have undone
that in change 1091:739ce8ae6bd3.

> I'd like to make a counter-proposal.  We keep the separation
> of eq? and eqv? on procedures as in the 9th draft.  In WG2
> we provide a declare syntax which can be used for declaring
> common optimizations, such as fixnum-only, or various levels
> of safety.  We can then provide a standard declaration such as

I am working on such a thing already in LibraryDeclarationsCowan;
they are integrated with library declarations, so you just put them
in your library files.  I have also added a `declare` syntax to
allow them in Scheme programs.

>   (declare procedures-have-no-location)

Added to the above page.

-- 
John Cowan            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan     cowan@x
Uneasy lies the head that wears the Editor's hat! --Eddie Foirbeis Climo

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