Am So., 16. Juni 2019 um 11:49 Uhr schrieb Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>:
>
> Hello again Vladimir,
>
> Vladimir Zhbanov <vzhbanov@gmail.com> writes:
> > - Is there a way to work around this (either using the above 'let'
> >   construct or anything else)?
>
> I'm not quite sure how to answer this question because I don't know what
> your requirements are.
>
> If you need to generate unique tags, any mutable object will do, e.g. a
> vector, list or string with at least one element that is not a literal.
> For example, (list #f), (vector #f), and (string #\a) must allocate a
> fresh object every time, but (list), (vector), (string), '(#f), #(#f),
> and "foo" may return the same object every time.
>
> If you need to generate a unique _procedure_, there's only one
> future-proof way to do it: the new procedure must behave differently
> than every other procedure, for some input.
>
> It's a mistake to expect procedures with equivalent behavior to be
> distinguishable in Scheme.  If you feel that you need this, I would like
> to understand why.
>
> Note that 'eq?' is the same as 'eqv?' when applied to procedures (and
> most other types), and that Scheme 'eqv?' historically implements an
> approximation of "operational equivalence".  That language was explicit
> in the R3RS, which defined 'eqv?' this way:
>
>   The eqv? procedure implements an approximation to the relation of
>   operational equivalence.  It returns #t if it can prove that obj1 and
>   obj2 are operationally equivalent.  If it can't, it always errs on the
>   conservative side and returns #f.
>
> with "operational equivalence" defined as follows:
>
>   Two objects are operationally equivalent if and only if there is no
>   way that they can be distinguished, using Scheme primitives other than
>   eqv? or eq? or those like memq and assv whose meaning is defined
>   explicitly in terms of eqv? or eq?.  It is guaranteed that objects
>   maintain their operational identity despite being named by variables
>   or fetched from or stored into data structures.
>
> More recent Scheme standards have dropped this language, because the
> Scheme authors were not entirely satisfied with this definition and were
> unable to formulate a better one, but nonetheless "operational
> equivalence" remains the closest thing I've seen to a unifying principle
> of the meaning of Scheme 'eqv?'.
>
>       Regards,
>         Mark
>
Hi Mark,

always interested in guile developments with regard to lilypond I
noticed some inconsistence with my local lilypond-using-guile-2.9.2
installation.
I think I could break it down to pure guile (no lilypond)

(1) The already stated behaviour:
~$ guile
GNU Guile 2.9.2
Copyright (C) 1995-2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Guile comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `,show w'.
This program is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `,show c' for details.

Enter `,help' for help.
scheme@(guile-user)> (define (function-generator)
                      (let ((func #f))
                        (lambda () (set! func (let a () a)) func)))
scheme@(guile-user)> (define x (function-generator))
scheme@(guile-user)> (define y (function-generator))
scheme@(guile-user)> (write (version))
"2.9.2"
scheme@(guile-user)> (format #t "\nTEST: ~a" (eq? (x) (y)))

TEST: #t
$1 = #t

(2) Doing it in a .scm-file (attached)
~$ guile --no-auto-compile eq-tst.scm
"2.9.2"
TEST: #f

Did I something wrong or is it a bug?

Cheers,
  Harm