From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#14792: Error in manual "(guile-2) Object Properties" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:01:18 +0200 Message-ID: <87txju8eb5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87ehbedwxt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87siztarok.fsf@tines.lan> <87wqp3mlkg.fsf@gnu.org> <87li563396.fsf@tines.lan> <877ggq9wca.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <874nbu2uwf.fsf@tines.lan> <87y5968fpx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87vc4a1dvs.fsf@tines.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374004930 28761 80.91.229.3 (16 Jul 2013 20:02:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 14792@debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 16 22:02:10 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UzBRp-0000DR-GX for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:02:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55068 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UzBRp-0005bJ-5Y for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:02:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33334) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UzBRm-0005b8-1r for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:02:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UzBRk-00032D-Mu for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:02:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:36461) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UzBRk-000327-Jo for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:02:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UzBRi-0004n6-C3 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:02:04 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: David Kastrup Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:02:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 14792 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 14792-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B14792.137400488518348 (code B ref 14792); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:02:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 14792) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jul 2013 20:01:25 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59010 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UzBR6-0004lp-6u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:01:24 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:59285 ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UzBR2-0004lQ-GB for 14792@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:01:22 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38357 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UzBR1-00089B-Cy; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:01:19 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E12FAEADBF; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:01:18 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87vc4a1dvs.fsf@tines.lan> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:52:23 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:7237 Archived-At: Mark H Weaver writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> Mark H Weaver writes: >> >>> David Kastrup writes: >>> >>>> Mark H Weaver writes: >>>> >>>> object identity is checked by eq? and is conceptually different from >>>> value equality. >>> >>> The Scheme standards don't support your view. The _only_ difference >>> between 'eq?' and 'eqv?' is that 'eqv?' is well-defined on numbers and >>> characters, whereas 'eq?' is unspecified for those types. >> >> And why would that be if numbers were proper objects? The difference is >> _exactly_ there because they aren't. > > I don't know what you mean by "proper objects". I guess maybe you mean > "objects with identity". > >>> Numbers and characters do not have any notion of "object identity", >>> apart from operational equivalence. >> >> Which is why it does not make a lot of sense to assign "object >> properties" to them. > > I understand that in the dominant "object oriented" programming > communities of today, the word "object" usually implies mutability and > identity, but the Scheme standards use the term differently. > > In the Scheme standards, the word "object" is synonymous with "value". > R5RS section 1.1 states "Types are associated with values (also called > objects) rather than with variables." Furthermore, R6RS consistently > calls numbers "objects", even though they lack "object identity" in the > sense that you mean. Well, eq?/eqv? are an inheritance from Lisp's eq/eql. If there is no clear conceptual difference any more, it would seem like a mistake to keep two different operators around. -- David Kastrup