[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: gls@AQUINAS.THINK.COM*Subject*: EQ?, again*From*: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>*Date*: Fri, 28 Feb 86 18:26:57 EST*cc*: RRRS-AUTHORS@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU*In-reply-to*: Msg of Fri 28 Feb 86 16:40 EST from Guy Steele <gls at THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 86 16:40 EST From: Guy Steele <gls at THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 21:37:49 EST From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> I 1. (EQ? (LAMBDA (X) X) (LAMBDA (Y) Y)) ;"Coalescing" I 2. (EQV? (LAMBDA (X) X) (LAMBDA (Y) Y)) I 3. (LET ((X (LAMBDA (Z) Z))) (EQ? X X)) ;"Splitting" T 4. (LET ((X (LAMBDA (Z) Z))) (EQV? X X)) I 5. (LET ((X ... any expression evaluating to an exact number ...)) (EQ? X X)) I 6. (EQ? #\X #\X) It took me a while to figure out how to reconcile your answer to 3 with your answer to 4. I take it you want procedures to know their identity, but that you imagine an implementation would still want the liberty to make (identity-preserving) copies, so EQ? might fail to recognize two procedures being the same, even though EQV? could succeed?

**Follow-Ups**:**EQ?, again***From:*Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>

- Prev by Date:
**numeric predicates** - Next by Date:
**S&I's idea of EQ?** - Prev by thread:
**EQ?, again** - Next by thread:
**EQ?, again** - Index(es):