[R6RS] `eqv?' on immutable records

[Michael Sperber]

Anton van Straaten <anton at appsolutions.com> writes:

> Michael Sperber wrote:
>>>E.g. what would the impact on the formal semantics be?
>> 
>> 
>> Well, location tags are needed for mutable objects anyway.  I'm not sure
>> if it's grown the "immutable" flag I asked for a long time ago, but I'll
>> check tomorrow.  In either case, it shouldn't be a problem.
>
> OK.  Another devil's advocate concern is backwards compatibility.  Is 
> the idea to allow location tagging of immutable values, but not require it?

It's hard to see how not to allow it.  I'd just restrict the sentence in
question to immutable values, and strike the eqv? example which seem to
refer to it, and move the rationale about eqv? unspecifiedness from the
records chapter to the appropriate place in the report.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla