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