Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

SRFI-1 round 2 discussion Olin Shivers (17 Feb 1999 21:13 UTC)
Re: SRFI-1 round 2 discussion Doug Currie (17 Feb 1999 22:07 UTC)
SRFI-1 round 2 discussion John Stone (18 Feb 1999 19:41 UTC)
Argument order of = equivalence predicates Olin Shivers (18 Feb 1999 20:02 UTC)
Re: Argument order of = equivalence predicates Donovan Kolbly (18 Feb 1999 22:29 UTC)
Re: SRFI-1 round 2 discussion Lars Thomas Hansen (04 Mar 1999 22:19 UTC)

Argument order of = equivalence predicates Olin Shivers 18 Feb 1999 20:02 UTC

   From: John Stone <xxxxxx@cs.rice.edu>
   Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:41:44 -0600 (CST)
   * Argument order of = equivalence predicates

	   Terminological point: It isn't an equivalence predicate unless it
   is reflexive, _symmetric_, and transitive.  Notational point:  It's
   extremely misleading to use the identifier `=' for a predicate that is not
   an equivalence predicate.

It's pleasant have a mathematician around to keep things on the straight
and narrow.

This is a good point. The = function not even slightly an equivalence relation
(although in practice, that is the common use). As I spell out in careful
detail in the topic's new text, you can *usefully* (not even pathologicaly)
use a function like <. So I should call it a "comparison" function. How's
that?

But I'm tempted to leave the parameter named "=" since it's short & convenient.
"CMP" or "COMPARE" seems more awkward.
    -Olin