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

Re: [Scheme-reports] new wording for eqv?

gls@x scripsit:

    To: KMP@x
    Subject: new wording for eqv?
    From: gls@x
    Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 18:20:58 EDT
    Cc: JAR@x, willc%tekchips.tek.com@x,
        KMP@x, rrrs-authors@x
    In-Reply-To: Kent M Pitman's message of Fri, 17 Jun 88 16:09 EDT
       Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 16:09 EDT
       From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@x>
       I observe as an aside also that your description is somewhat
       meta-circular, though perhaps not enough to worry about here. You
       effectively begin by saying that EQV? computes whether two things
       are distinct (for which i read "not the same"), and yet the
       terminology uses the word "the same" all over the place.
    Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

24 years later, still going round.  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Some people open all the Windows;       John Cowan
wise wives welcome the spring           cowan@x
by moving the Unix.                     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
  --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.)
        (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)

Scheme-reports mailing list