"Mark Engelberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Reading through eqv? for records, it seems like if all the fields of a > record are immutable, than equivalence should be defined by > equivalence of the field contents.
No. First off, the place for that would be `equal?', not `eqv?'. As to why `equal?' doesn't (and shouldn't) work this way, see: http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2005-August/000840.html -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
