On May 24, 2007, at 1:02 PM, R. Kent Dybvig wrote:
> I think this decision to (un)specify eqv? in this manner was a mistake
> and hope we can agree to fix the mistake.
Actually, given that eqv? and eq? are completely unspecified
for immutable pairs, I don't see how even simple procedures
like list? can be implemented portably in a straightforward
manner. The definition of list? in TSPL[*] is not guaranteed
to work when passed an immutable list of length 2 or greater.
Aziz,,,
[*]
http://www.scheme.com/tspl3/further.html#defn:list?
Received on Sun May 27 2007 - 21:08:24 UTC