John Cowan quoting me: > > If > > you tried to argue that functions aren't first class in Standard ML, > > for example, SML programmers would think you've lost your marbles, > > but (IIRC) SML doesn't define equality on functions at all. > > Different definitions for different contexts. SML equality has ad-hoc > polymorphism; Scheme `eqv?` has universal polymorphism.
That's news to me. Which of the Scheme reports/standards do you wish to cite as your source? And how do you reconcile your just-so story with the change made long ago, when both (eqv? (vector) (vector)) and (eqv? (string) (string)) were required to return true? > In SML, almost > everything is immutable, and Leibniz's criterion doesn't apply. In Scheme, procedures have never been immutable (although they can refer to mutable objects), so I guess Leibniz's criterion doesn't apply to procedures. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
