[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Jon L White <@sail.stanford.edu:firstname.lastname@example.org>, SEB1525%draper.com@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
- Subject: Re: EQ
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 88 19:23:01 GMT
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Jon L White's message of Sat, 17 Dec 88 01:17:22 PST
> A good point to make for retention of EQ is that even though portable
> code may not be able to utilize the difference between EQ and EQL, it
> will still be the case that every implementation will have *some*
> function that does address/pointer identity comparison; so we might as
> well all call it the same thing, so as to minimize the culture shock when
> moving from one implementation to another.
Just so. While portable code is more important, I don't think we should
discount non-protable code completely. And I don't think we should force
people to write only portable code. Besides, using EQ in a portable way
is generally easier than using declarations.
I realize that CL has gone a different way with the generic arithmetic
functions, but the two cases are not identical. If necessary, I suppose
a more elaborate justification for EQ could be attempted, but is there any
great harm to keeping EQ?