On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:56:18AM -0800, bear wrote:
> Per's idea of making eq? undefined on values would more or less
> force people to use eqv? for values - with the result that code
> would have more consistent meaning across implementations and
> machines.
I hope that the idea is to make eq? only undefined for /two/
values, but leave it defined for one value and one immutable
object, i.e.:
(eq? 'x 'x) => #t
(eq? 1 1) => undefined
but
(eq? 'x 1) => #f
(eq? 1 'x) => #f
I guess that making the latter two undefined would break a lot
of existing code.
--
Nils M Holm <nmh_at_t3x.org> -- http://t3x.org/nmh/
Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 14:21:51 UTC