# [plt-scheme] Re: Scheme workshop survey

Does the following progression make sense, by ordinary standards of
Ameringlish?
(car '((a b c) x y z)) is '(a b c)
The value of (car '((a b c) x y z)) is (a b c)
rac
On Oct 19, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Alan Watson wrote:
>* The question at http://dynamo.iro.umontreal.ca/sw/survey/ has been
*>* changed.
*>*
*>* The problem with regarding the (original) question as "what value
*>* does it reduce to?" and the convention that we "consider values to
*>* be a subset of expressions that do not require
*>* further evaluation" is that there is no standard means to write
*>* such an expression that will be eqv? to the required expression.
*>* Even Eli's answer doesn't get us there, as his expression produces a
*>* value that will be equal? to the required value, but once again not
*>* necessarily eqv?. That's why I say the original question is
*>* unanswerable.
*>*
*>* If the original question had been, "what is the value of (car '(a b
*>* c)), we could regard 'a as a correct reply under these assumptions,
*>* because the values of both expressions will be eqv?.
*>*
*>* Now, this depends on interpreting "is" as meaning "eqv?" rather than
*>* "equal?". However, one would not say that two different calls to
*>* (list 'a 'b 'c) produced the same value (in Standard Scheme), so I
*>* think eqv? is this correct predicate here.
*>*
*>* Regards,
*>*
*>* Alan
*>* --
*>* Alan Watson
*>* http://www.alan-watson.org/
*>*
*>* _________________________________________________
*>* For list-related administrative tasks:
*>* http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
*