From: Joel Ray Holveck
Subject: EQness of #'FOO
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:53:19 +0000
Message-ID: <y7cwusjenlc.fsf@sindri.juniper.net>

I'm trying to determine what the result of this should be:

  (labels ((foo () t)) (eq #'foo #'foo))

I wasn't sure where to look in the spec, but the closest thing I found
was under FUNCTION:

    If name is a function name, THE functional definition of that name
    is that established by the innermost lexically enclosing flet,
    labels, or macrolet form, if there is one.  (emphasis added -joelh)

The use of the term THE may imply that they need to be EQ, but it's
not a very strong argument.

My testing indicates that under CMUCL, the above form returns NIL when
interpreted, but T when compiled.  If I replace LABELS with FLET, it
returns T even when interpreted.

Anybody have any thoughts on this matter?

Thanks,
joelh

From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: EQness of #'FOO
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:19:35 +0000
Message-ID: <xcvvg83iamw.fsf@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>

Joel Ray Holveck <·····@juniper.net> writes:

> I'm trying to determine what the result of this should be:
> 
>   (labels ((foo () t)) (eq #'foo #'foo))
> 
> I wasn't sure where to look in the spec, but the closest thing I found
> was under FUNCTION:

My reading of the spec doesn't require FUNCTION to return EQ values.
I certainly wouldn't depend on it.

-- 
           /|_     .-----------------------.                        
         ,'  .\  / | No to Imperialist war |                        
     ,--'    _,'   | Wage class war!       |                        
    /       /      `-----------------------'                        
   (   -.  |                               
   |     ) |                               
  (`-.  '--.)                              
   `. )----'