On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:37:49 -0400, John Cowan <[email protected]> said:
[email protected] scripsit:
To: [email protected]
Subject: new wording for eqv?
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 18:20:58 EDT
Cc: [email protected], willc%[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
In-Reply-To: Kent M Pitman's message of Fri, 17 Jun 88 16:09 EDT
[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 16:09 EDT
From: Kent M Pitman <[email protected]>
I observe as an aside also that your description is somewhat
meta-circular, though perhaps not enough to worry about here. You
effectively begin by saying that EQV? computes whether two things
are distinct (for which i read "not the same"), and yet the
terminology uses the word "the same" all over the place.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
24 years later, still going round. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose.
Et nil novus sub soli.
By the way, from "the same" author:
<a href="http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PS/EQUAL.html";>Kent Pitman, "P.S.: The
Best of Intentions. EQUAL Rights---and Wrongs---in Lisp"</a>
---Vassil.
--
Vassil Nikolov | Васил Николов | <[email protected]>
"Be careful how you fix what you don't understand." (Brooks 2010, 185)
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
