[R6RS] eq?/eqv? on immutable pairs, records, etc.

[Michael Sperber]

"R. Kent Dybvig" <dyb at cs.indiana.edu> writes:

> A reasonable compromise position might be to allow multiple copies of
> quoted constants to be created, i.e., for the semantics to leave such
> objects untagged.  

These are definitely the most important.

> This would allow the kinds of beta substitutions that we have talked
> about to occur without any additional checks.

What other immutable objects are we talking about?  Procedures,
immutable records and hash tables, right?

For procedures, it seems especially insidious to require a location.

I don't care about hash tables---we might as well give even the
immutable ones a location.

However, for immutable records, it seems to me unboxing analyses are
kind of important---especially as records are the means of choice to do
representation hiding.  Maybe we could add another clause or an option
to the `immutable' clause that forces a location.

Just guessing here ... Maybe I'm completely wrong as to what's important
to you.

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