"Mark Engelberg" <mark.engelberg at gmail.com> writes:
> Reading through eqv? for records, it seems like if all the fields of a
> record are immutable, than equivalence should be defined by
> equivalence of the field contents.
No. First off, the place for that would be `equal?', not `eqv?'. As to
why `equal?' doesn't (and shouldn't) work this way, see:
http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2005-August/000840.html
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Tue Aug 14 2007 - 04:22:42 UTC