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 531: Eq? should not be called an equivalence predicate

2013-07-07 03:20:44
WG1 - Core
alexshinn
major
cowan
wontfix
source
closed
2013-05-13 18:02:00
defect

Will Clinger posted to scheme-reports:

In my opinion, the R5RS, R6RS, and R7RS draft 9 all err when they say eq? is an equivalence predicate without alluding to the restricted domain of values for which it is an equivalence predicate.

John Cowan replied that eqv? is also an equivalence predicate only for a limited domain of Scheme values, because it doesn't work on operationally equivalent but unrelated procedures, and asked for a precise definition of "equivalence predicate" that would include eqv? but exclude eq?.

resolutionwontfix
statusnewclosed

The WG decided by unanimous consent to take no action on this ticket.