[r6rs-discuss] Why is (eqv? g g) unspecified when g is a procedure?
bear at sonic.net
Tue Jul 17 04:21:49 EDT 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 07/16/2012 02:12 PM, Joe Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Ray Dillinger <bear at sonic.net>
>> The proposal is that a simple case for implementations to prove
>> eqv?-ness on functions, and one which can and ought to be handled
>> by all implementations, is the case where functions have the same
>> code vector and that code does not refer to any values held in a
> It is the "ought" part that is the problem. Although it seems
> reasonable for an implementation to simply compare pointers for
> EQ?-ness, a highly optimizing compiler might not have code vectors,
> or might have non-eq code vectors for eq procedures.
Indeed this is the case for Stalin, now that I think of it.
Although it appears that Stalin is no longer under development
and "stretching" it to fit the more recent standards would
require a comprehensive re-engineering effort.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the r6rs-discuss