John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> writes:
> Alan Watson scripsit:
>
>> "Moreover, if (eqv? obj1 obj2) returns #t, then obj1 and obj2 behave the
>> same when passed as arguments to any procedure that can be written as a
>> finite composition of Scheme???s standard procedures."
>
> I think the problem can be removed by adding the words
> "other than eq?" to the end.
As it's written as a corollary rather than as part of the list that
specifies `eqv?', it can be removed wholesale. The statement got there
through an unfortunate finite composition of standard cut-and-paste
procedures.
Good catch!
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Thu Jun 28 2007 - 03:33:38 UTC