On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:37:49 -0400, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> said:

    gls@Think.COM scripsit:

        To: KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com
        Subject: new wording for eqv?
        From: gls@Think.COM
        Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 18:20:58 EDT
        Cc: JAR@ai.ai.mit.edu, willc%tekchips.tek.com@relay.cs.net,
            KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com, rrrs-authors@mc.lcs.mit.edu
        In-Reply-To: Kent M Pitman's message of Fri, 17 Jun 88 16:09 EDT
            880617160937.3.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

           Date: Fri, 17 Jun 88 16:09 EDT
           From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>

           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 | <vnikolov@pobox.com>

"Be careful how you fix what you don't understand."  (Brooks 2010, 185)

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