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 wiki WG1Ballot10Results version 1

author

cowan

comment

ipnr

127.10.177.1

name

WG1Ballot10Results

readonly

text

= Notes about Results =

See [wiki:WG1BallotExplanation WG1BallotExplanation].

= WG1 Ballot Items To Finalize By Jul. 6 =

== WG1 - Core ==

=== #125 Allow procedures not to be locations (making EQV? unspecified in some additional cases) ===

  * '''Options:''' r6rs, r5rs, undecided
  * '''Default:''' r5rs
  * '''Results:''' r5rs

By unanimous consent, the WG returned to the R5RS semantics.

=== #467 Allow eqv? and eq? to return different answers on procedures as well as integers and characters ===

This proposal stems from [http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2012-July/006405.html remarks] by Alaric Snell-Pym and Will Clinger on the r6rs public mailing list.  If `eq?` is allowed to return `#f` on two procedures when `eqv?` nevertheless returns `#t`, as is already the case for numbers and characters, then more intelligent implementation-specific procedure comparisons using `eqv?` are possible, while still keeping `eq?` simple enough to inline easily.

Note that this is orthogonal to the question of #460, how `eqv?` works on procedures.  There should be little or no backward-compatibility hit for this change.

  * '''Proposals:'''
    * '''same:''' `eq?` and `eqv?` always return the same on procedures, per R5RS and R6RS
    * '''different:''' `eq?` may return `#f` on procedures even when `eqv?` returns `#t` (but not vice versa)
  * '''Options:''' same, different, undecided
  * '''Default:''' same
  * '''Results:''' different

By unanimous consent, the WG adopted the following partial definition of the behavior of `eq?` on procedures:

  On procedures, `eq?` must return true if the arguments' location tags are equal.

time

2013-07-07 01:32:55