Nils M Holm wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:56:18AM -0800, bear wrote:
>> Per's idea of making eq? undefined on values ....
> I hope that the idea is to make eq? only undefined for /two/
> values ...
I'm not suggesting that we change the semantics of
eq? for Scheme. I was just making/concurring with the point that
the semantics of eq? are rather ugly, and if you wanted to
design a new Lisp-like language it would be cleaner to not
do things this way. But changing that semantics of eq? is
this drastic way is not appropriate for R6RS.b
> But leave it defined for one value and one immutable
> object, i.e.:
> (eq? 'x 'x) => #t
Well, a symbol, since it is immutable, is really a value,
not an object, so that would be undefined too, in such
a proposal - which I'm not making.
> (eq? 1 1) => undefined
This is I believe already the case.
--
--Per Bothner
per_at_bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 14:46:34 UTC