This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.

Ticket 478: Procedure equivalence should return.

2013-07-07 03:06:22
WG1 - Core
alexshinn
major
cowan
fixed
source
closed
2013-05-12 22:00:14
defect

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.

cowan
2013-05-12 22:07:45
summaryThe draft semantics of `eq?` and `eqv?` as applied to procedures should return to the IEEE/R5RS rulesProcedure equivalence should return.
descriptionWG1 has already unanimously agreed with this statement.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.
cowan
2013-05-13 18:23:25
_comment0Note: This objection was raised originally by Gerry Sussman. Vincent Stewart Manis, Alan Watson, and Jussi Piitulainen agree.1368492144846167

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

cowan
2013-07-07 03:06:13

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.

cowan
2013-07-07 03:06:22
resolution␣fixed
statusnewclosed