[cdr-discuss] Names for the equality generic function

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa at cs.nyu.edu>
writes:

> Hi
>
> I created a Google form to vote on the name...
>
> Cheers
>
> Marco
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>     From: marcoxa at gmail.com
>     Date: February 16, 2011 9:58:50 AM GMT+01:00
>     To: marcoxa at cs.nyu.edu
>     Subject: Names for the equality generic function
>    
>     If you have trouble viewing or submitting this form, you can fill it out online:
>     https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dDFZSTJ4OTlCTlNaQlc3YlhUNjAza1E6MQ
>
>     Names for the equality generic function
>
>     What name should be used for the generic function "equality"? *
>       □ ( ) EQUALITY
>       □ ( ) EQUIV
>       □ ( ) EQUP
>       □ ( ) EQUALS
>       □ ( ) ==
>       □ ( ) EQUIVALENT
>       □ ( ) AEQUALIS
>       □ ( ) SAMEP
>       □ ( ) EQUIVP


I voted for EQUALS.  It should be in length at least more than
EQUAL.  EQUAL shows that it doesn't necessarily needs the -P postfix.

EQUALS being of same length as EQUALP shows that
  
   (equals x y) <= (equalp x y)

doesn't need to hold.


On the other hand, we should have:

  (equals x y) <= (equal x y)



AEQUALIS was nice, but let's keep CL English.

I definitely reject EQUIVALENT and similar, because equivalence is a
different notion n what I think is wanted with this equality generic
function.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.