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 �a change, plus c'est la m�me chose.

--
Some people open all the Windows;       John Cowan
wise wives welcome the spring           cowan@ccil.org
by moving the Unix.                     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
  --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.)
        (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)