Version 1 (modified by cowan, 4 years ago) (diff)


Notes about Results

See WG1BallotExplanation.

WG1 Ballot Items To Finalize By Jul. 6

WG1 - Core

#125 Allow procedures not to be locations (making EQV? unspecified in some additional cases)

  • Options: r6rs, r5rs, undecided
  • Default: r5rs
  • Results: r5rs

By unanimous consent, the WG returned to the R5RS semantics.

#467 Allow eqv? and eq? to return different answers on procedures as well as integers and characters

This proposal stems from remarks by Alaric Snell-Pym and Will Clinger on the r6rs public mailing list. If eq? is allowed to return #f on two procedures when eqv? nevertheless returns #t, as is already the case for numbers and characters, then more intelligent implementation-specific procedure comparisons using eqv? are possible, while still keeping eq? simple enough to inline easily.

Note that this is orthogonal to the question of #460, how eqv? works on procedures. There should be little or no backward-compatibility hit for this change.

  • Proposals:
    • same: eq? and eqv? always return the same on procedures, per R5RS and R6RS
    • different: eq? may return #f on procedures even when eqv? returns #t (but not vice versa)
  • Options: same, different, undecided
  • Default: same
  • Results: different

By unanimous consent, the WG adopted the following partial definition of the behavior of eq? on procedures:

On procedures, eq? must return true if the arguments' location tags are equal.