I'm curious: why do you want all characters to be eq? to each other instead of just equal??
Robby On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Jon Zeppieri <zeppi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since incompatible future changes seem to be coming up a lot, I > thought I'd add one more. What do the members of this list think of > removing eqv? all of its associated machinery (e.g., memv, hasheqv, > etc.)? > > (Along with this change, it would be nice if characters could all be > immediately represented, so that those with equal code points would be > eq? RIght now, all unicode code points can be encoded in 22 bits, I > think. I'm not so familiar with racket's current representation of > characters, but I figure that they could easily be fit into a single > machine word on 64-bit builds. I don't know how difficult it would be > on 32-bit builds. And, of course, there's no guarantee that the number > of code points won't increase significantly.) > > Alternatively (and following Sam's line of thought from [1]), eqv? > could be extended to cover all of racket's immutable data structures. > In this case eqv? should also be made generic so that user-defined > immutable data structures can use it, as well. > > > [1] http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2013-April/057510.html > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
