On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would be a smart idea to change the implementation, then, so that > the unspecified value could not be tested with (eq?). That would > prevent it from being 'misused'.
The unspecified value is unspecified. It has both no identity and no efforts are made to make it identity-less. > > There does seem to be a good case for an immediate value that *can* be > tested this way, though. John et. al. wouldn't have used (void) in > eggs if there weren't. Record instances aren't really a great answer > (though I suggested them myself) since different records of the same > type will fail an identity test. Unless you use a single unique instance. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
