This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 1 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 1 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
From: John Stone <jstone@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:41:44 -0600 (CST) * Argument order of = equivalence predicates Terminological point: It isn't an equivalence predicate unless it is reflexive, _symmetric_, and transitive. Notational point: It's extremely misleading to use the identifier `=' for a predicate that is not an equivalence predicate. It's pleasant have a mathematician around to keep things on the straight and narrow. This is a good point. The = function not even slightly an equivalence relation (although in practice, that is the common use). As I spell out in careful detail in the topic's new text, you can *usefully* (not even pathologicaly) use a function like <. So I should call it a "comparison" function. How's that? But I'm tempted to leave the parameter named "=" since it's short & convenient. "CMP" or "COMPARE" seems more awkward. -Olin