Opened 4 years ago

Closed 4 years ago

#478 closed defect (fixed)

Procedure equivalence should return.

Reported by: cowan Owned by: alexshinn
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: WG1 - Core Keywords:
Cc:

Description (last modified by cowan)

The draft semantics of eq? and eqv? as applied to procedures should return to the IEEE/R5RS rules, as distinct from the R6RS rule that procedure equivalence is completely implementation-dependent.

WG1 has already unanimously agreed with this statement.

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by cowan

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Summary changed from The draft semantics of `eq?` and `eqv?` as applied to procedures should return to the IEEE/R5RS rules to Procedure equivalence should return.

comment:2 Changed 4 years ago by cowan

Note: This objection was raised originally by Gerry Sussman. Vincent Stewart Manis, Alan Watson, Jussi Piitulainen, Sudarshan S. Chawathe agree.

Last edited 4 years ago by cowan (previous) (diff)

comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by cowan

The WG decided to return to the R5RS semantics of eqv?, but defined eq? on procedures to return true if the procedures have the same location tags, thus allowing divergence between eqv? and eq? in the case of having different location tags.

comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by cowan

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.