John Cowan quoting me: > > That example was *not* intended to say eq? and eqv? must behave > > the same on procedures. How do I know? Because Jonathan Rees > > and I worked together on this. > > I see that now. But as a general point, standards (like other legal > codes) don't mean what their authors mean them to mean. What the > author says has a peculiar interest, but not a peculiar authority.
Agreed. My digression wouldn't have been necessary if you had based your interpretation on what prior standards actually said, instead of trying to infer intent from a couple of examples. Once you move into the land of intent, authors' intentions become relevant. Will _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
