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 #531
cc
changetime
2013-07-07 03:20:44
component
WG1 - Core
description
Will Clinger posted to [http://lists.scheme-reports.org/pipermail/scheme-reports/2013-May/003409.html 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?`.
id
531
keywords
milestone
owner
alexshinn
priority
major
reporter
cowan
resolution
wontfix
severity
status
closed
summary
Eq? should not be called an equivalence predicate
time
2013-05-13 18:02:00
type
defect
Changes
Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
The WG decided by unanimous consent to take no action on this ticket.
oldvalue
1
raw-time
1373142044410382
ticket
531
time
2013-07-07 03:20:44
Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
wontfix
oldvalue
raw-time
1373142044410382
ticket
531
time
2013-07-07 03:20:44
Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
closed
oldvalue
new
raw-time
1373142044410382
ticket
531
time
2013-07-07 03:20:44