Bill, hello. On 27 Aug 2025, at 21:09, [email protected] wrote:
> I think the old eq? is much preferable to the mess > that r5rs created. I'm tempted to leave it the > way it is, but if others have a strong preference > for the current way, I could make s7 treat "eq?" > as simply shorthand for "eqv?". Me, I've no preference either way -- I doubt there's anything I do with s7 where the issue would make a difference. ...but I'm unable to help myself, in the presence of any sentence which says or hints ‘the Standard says...’! One of the few things (I think) I can remember off the top of my head, about the standard's prescriptions for eq?/eqv?/equal?, is that they generate successively larger equivalence classes, in the sense that anything that is eq? to x must necessarily also be eqv? and equal? to it. There's a fine tidiness to that, but I'm sure it's sacrificable if it creates untideness elsewhere. Best wishes, Norman -- Norman Gray : https://nxg.me.uk _______________________________________________ Cmdist mailing list [email protected] https://cm-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist
