13 Mar
2008
13 Mar
'08
4:08 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Adrian Hey
AFAICT the report is ambiguous about this, or at least the non-intutive equality semantics are not at all clear to me from what I can see in the Eq class definition (para 6.3.1). I think an the absence of any clear and *explicit* statement to the contrary people are entitled to assume this law is mandatory for all (correct) Eq instances.
In mathematics we usually *don't* assume things that aren't stated assumptions. Luke