Re: [Scheme-reports] procedure identity

To: "Taylan Ulrich B." <taylanbayirli@x>
Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] procedure identity
From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 08:41:35 -0400
Cc: Gerald Jay Sussman <gjs@x>, scheme-reports@x
In-reply-to: <87sj0wvo1g.fsf@taylan.uni.cx>
References: <E1Uk03T-0000kt-7a@gjs-x1> <51AE7631.4050903@bothner.com> <87sj0wvo1g.fsf@taylan.uni.cx>

Taylan Ulrich B. scripsit:

> eq? is a (typically) more efficient eqv?, 

I have yet to be convinced that `eq?` actually is more efficient
than `eqv?` on the safe types.

-- 
Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRAN    John Cowan
in any language.  --Ed Post                     cowan@x

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Scheme-reports] procedure identity
  - From: taylanbayirli@x (Taylan Ulrich B.)

References:
- [Scheme-reports] Scheme-reports Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4
  - From: Gerald Jay Sussman <gjs@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] procedure identity
  - From: Per Bothner <per@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] procedure identity
  - From: taylanbayirli@x (Taylan Ulrich B.)

Prev by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
Next by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Procedural equivalence: the last debate
Previous by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] procedure identity
Next by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] procedure identity
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread