Just for performance. No other reason. -Jon
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > 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
