From: Jim Pryor Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:34:07 +0000 (-0500) Subject: week9 tweak X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=61612ba6746dc4646fb0d5bb1c9e1864bf927848;hp=624de393ea56a7ab1e802c02b2423ee02b31944a week9 tweak Signed-off-by: Jim Pryor --- diff --git a/week9.mdwn b/week9.mdwn index f854d273..721dde59 100644 --- a/week9.mdwn +++ b/week9.mdwn @@ -696,7 +696,7 @@ Programming languages tend to provide a bunch of mutation-related capabilities a in let (adder', setter') = factory 1 in ... - Of course, in most languages you wouldn't be able to evaluate a comparison like `getter = getter'`, because in general the question whether two functions always return the same values for the same arguments is not decidable. So typically languages don't even try to answer that question. However, it would still be true that `getter` and `getter'` (and `adder` and `adder'`) were extensionally equivalent. + Of course, in most languages you wouldn't be able to evaluate a comparison like `getter = getter'`, because in general the question whether two functions always return the same values for the same arguments is not decidable. So typically languages don't even try to answer that question. However, it would still be true that `getter` and `getter'` (and `adder` and `adder'`) were extensionally equivalent; you just wouldn't be able to establish so. However, they're not numerically identical, because by calling `setter 2` (but not calling `setter' 2`) we can mutate the function value `getter` (and `adder`) so that it's *no longer* qualitatively indiscernible from `getter'` (or `adder'`).