[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: EQUAL-STRUCTURE (Version 4)
- To: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: EQUAL-STRUCTURE (Version 4)
- From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 1 Oct 88 21:27:45 PDT
- Cc: Masinter.PA@Xerox.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman's message of Sat, 1 Oct 88 18:46 EDT <881001184620.6.KMP@GRYPHON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
re: I'd also like to add a paragraph like the following to the proposal
part. Anyone object or want to amend the wording?
Document that object equality is not a concept for which
there is a uniquely determined correct algorithm. ...
. . .
I object. (but take that with a smile!)
Let's just say that there are numerous equivalence relations that can
be defined on data strucures as rich as those available in Common Lisp,
and that EQL, EQUAL and EQUALP are merely three historically important
relics. Phrases that tend to imply that "object equality" is not a
"correct" concept, just don't belong in the language specification.
One *might* need to remind the lang. spec. reader
(1) just what an equivalence relation is;
(2) that EQ has the maximal number of equivalence classes;
(3) and that as relations, EQ is a subset of EQL, EQL is a subset
of EQUAL, and EQUAL is a subset of EQUALP.
-- JonL --