[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Add symbol=? and boolean=?

From: Thomas Lord <lord>
Date: Sun Feb 11 14:50:59 2007

Per Bothner wrote:
> 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

In the primary curricula that are around, and in what "the kids are doing
these days" -- is eq? itself that big a deal? I don't see eqv? or
equal? changing all that much.

-t
Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 14:58:04 UTC