From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Cons Cell Representation---`sameness' again
Date: 1999/04/07
Message-ID: <3132456355962317@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 463543041
References: <3708E10A.95044D30@nospamplease.uleth.ca> <vo7O2.274$kM2.40324@burlma1-snr2> <7ecis5$g7i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Vassil Nikolov <vnikolov@poboxes.com>
| Also note that from the point of view of a `microscope-enabled' observer
| who has access to the bit strings stored in the cons cells there are many
| many more than 3 representations because cons cells at different machine
| addresses would be distinguishable.

  in what way is EQ not microscope-enabled, and how could you get more than
  three different representations of a _single_ list like this, unless you
  compare a cons cell from one list's representation and a cons cell from
  _another_ list's representation, but that seems a rather silly argument
  and not dependent on "bit strings" at all.  what did I miss?

#:Erik