[R6RS] `eqv?' on immutable records

[William D Clinger]

Mike wrote:
> >> More generally, we say right now that even immutable pairs, vectors, and
> >> strings denote storage locations: In the light of the above, shouldn't
> >> we also make adjustments here to make them the same as immutable
> >> records?
> >
> > That was a mistake that was put into the R5RS at the
> > insistence of the rabble.  You are certainly free to
> > make the same mistake in the R6RS.
>
> Just to be sure I understand what you're saying: Which one's the
> mistake?

It was a mistake to tag immutable pairs, vectors, strings,
and especially procedures with a location.  I have always
argued against the location-tagging of procedures, and was
quite galled when the rabble used the denotational semantics
that I had written, at a time before the introduction of
immutable pairs, vectors, and strings, to argue that both
immutable and mutable structures should be location-tagged.

Will