[r6rs-discuss] Why is (eqv? g g) unspecified when g is a procedure?

[Marijn]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Paul,

On 09-07-12 03:57, Paul Schlie wrote:
> Aaron W. Hsu Scripsit:
>> If performance is important, then use one of the already useful
>> and good Scheme implementations out there that produce fast code.
>> If you do not care about speed, feel free to use a naive 
>> implementation, but do not expect it to be fast.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand; as the issue is about what r7rs should
> be, isn't it.

I think the conversation (up to the point you quoted) went something
like this:

Will Clinger: The R5RS semantics lead to bad code and performance
hacks. The R6RS semantics are more efficient in the general case.
(Thus R7RS should specify the R6RS semantics.)

John Cowan: Performance hacks are important on slower implementations.
(Thus R7RS should specify the R5RS semantics.)

Aaron W. Hsu: If you want speed, use a fast implementation! (Thus R7RS
should specify the R6RS semantics.)

Hope that clarifies,

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/75+YACgkQp/VmCx0OL2yzqACeJLOE/2v7KESnIRUKoZIXJtKH
stkAnjYlr6dqfKx6aH/AkAUrWu7NtBfD
=pFBW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----