Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!NewsWatcher!user
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: The UObj Puzzle -- my (flawed) solution [as promised]
Message-ID: <hbaker-0702951745410001@192.0.2.1>
Sender: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry G. Baker)
Organization: nil
References: <9502061918.aa18888@mc.lcs.mit.edu> <3h6fu9$ebp@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 01:42:52 GMT
Lines: 9

In article <3h6fu9$ebp@agate.berkeley.edu>, bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU
(Brian Harvey) wrote:

> If it were me, I'd say that every invocation of lambda should be required
> to make an EQ?-unique object, but that if a compiler can prove that in fact
> nobody calls EQ? on some batch of procedures, then it's allowed to be clever.

This is not a good idea, for reasons that are laid out in the paper at URL
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/ObjectIdentity.html (also .ps.Z)
