new wording for eqv?

[gls@Think.COM]

   Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 16:09 EDT
   From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>

   I observe as an aside also that your description is somewhat
   meta-circular, though perhaps not enough to worry about here. You
   effectively begin by saying that EQV? computes whether two things
   are distinct (for which i read "not the same"), and yet the
   terminology uses the word "the same" all over the place.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.