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.
Source for ticket #478
cc
changetime
2013-07-07 03:06:22
component
WG1 - Core
description
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.
id
478
keywords
milestone
owner
alexshinn
priority
major
reporter
cowan
resolution
fixed
severity
status
closed
summary
Procedure equivalence should return.
time
2013-05-12 22:00:14
type
defect
Changes
Change at time 2013-07-07 03:06:22
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
4
raw-time
1373141182765638
ticket
478
time
2013-07-07 03:06:22
Change at time 2013-07-07 03:06:22
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
fixed
oldvalue
raw-time
1373141182765638
ticket
478
time
2013-07-07 03:06:22
Change at time 2013-07-07 03:06:22
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
closed
oldvalue
new
raw-time
1373141182765638
ticket
478
time
2013-07-07 03:06:22
Change at time 2013-07-07 03:06:13
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
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.
oldvalue
3
raw-time
1373141173686511
ticket
478
time
2013-07-07 03:06:13
Change at time 2013-05-13 18:23:25
author
cowan
field
_comment0
newvalue
1368492144846167
oldvalue
Note: This objection was raised originally by Gerry Sussman. Vincent Stewart Manis, Alan Watson, and Jussi Piitulainen agree.
raw-time
1368444205425475
ticket
478
time
2013-05-13 18:23:25
Change at time 2013-05-13 18:23:25
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
Note: This objection was raised originally by Gerry Sussman. Vincent Stewart Manis, Alan Watson, Jussi Piitulainen, Sudarshan S. Chawathe agree.
oldvalue
2
raw-time
1368444205425475
ticket
478
time
2013-05-13 18:23:25
Change at time 2013-05-12 22:07:45
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
1
raw-time
1368371265921427
ticket
478
time
2013-05-12 22:07:45
Change at time 2013-05-12 22:07:45
author
cowan
field
summary
newvalue
Procedure equivalence should return.
oldvalue
The draft semantics of `eq?` and `eqv?` as applied to procedures should return to the IEEE/R5RS rules
raw-time
1368371265921427
ticket
478
time
2013-05-12 22:07:45
Change at time 2013-05-12 22:07:45
author
cowan
field
description
newvalue
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.
oldvalue
WG1 has already unanimously agreed with this statement.
raw-time
1368371265921427
ticket
478
time
2013-05-12 22:07:45