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

*To*: JAR@mc.lcs.mit.edu*Subject*: Re: S&I's idea of EQ? (OOPS!)*From*: Kent Dybvig <dyb%indiana.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>*Date*: Fri, 14 Mar 86 12:56:33 est*Cc*: JINX@oz.ai.mit.edu, RRRS-AUTHORS@mc.lcs.mit.edu

Yes, I see what you mean. Here is my real answer to the EQ-Quiz. Sorry for the slip up... I went back to edit lower case t's and f's (because lower case i didn't look right) into upper case T's and F's and apparently screwed up. F (eq? (lambda (x) x) (lambda (y) y)) F (eqv? (lambda (x) x) (lambda (y) y)) T (let ((x (lambda (z) z))) (eq? x x)) T (let ((x (lambda (z) z))) (eqv? x x)) T (let ((x ... any expression evaluating to an exact number ...)) (eq? x x)) I (eq? #\x #\x) There is one important one to add, by the way: F (let ([f (lambda () (lambda (y) y))]) (eq? (f) (f))) Which right now returns true in Chez Scheme. Sigh... Kent

- Prev by Date:
**Re: S&I's idea of EQ?** - Next by Date:
**Re: S&I's idea of EQ?** - Prev by thread:
**survey results (long message)** - Next by thread:
**small changes** - Index(es):