[R6RS] R6RS records: record equality

[Michael Sperber]

Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> The specification indicates that two records are equal? iff they are
> eq? (except if they represent builtin types like pairs, vectors, etc).
> I object to the "equal? iff eq?" because it limits the use of records.
> I would prefer a recursive definition where (equal? r1 r2) is true iff
> r1 and r2 are of the same record type, and for each field, the contents
> of that field in r1 and r2 are equal?.  

I'll be happy to put this up in the issue bullet, but I think it would
be a really bad idea.  The current definition doesn't limit the use of
records, but it does limit the use of EQUAL?.  I believe that's a good
thing, for the reasons that came up in the discussion of this in
Snowbird.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla