Yes, I do believe that the "intuitive" thing is for equal? on all records to descend through the fields, and have read the arguments suggesting that this is too costly or problematic.
But that is not really my point here. I'm making a stronger claim about how _immutable_ records should be treated with respect to eqv?. The whole point of immutable records is to be able to treat immutable records as equivalent if they contain the exact same data. --Mark On 8/14/07, Mike Sperber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "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
