Aubrey Jaffer wrote: > Not so! If you use records to specify the new type, then EQV? won't > work on these new characters. States r5.97rs-lib section 6.1 > Mutability and equivalence of records: > > * If obj1 and obj2 are both records of the same record type, and > are the results of two separate calls to record constructors, then > eqv? returns #f. >
Oh my goodness. That's very, very bad. That reifies an execution model in a particularly unforgivable way. I was just thinking, earlier today, that R6 blows it by introducing intentional types when the only real demand was for user-defined disjoint types. I was thinking of libraries but the same design pattern issue relates to records. New rule: shun opaque types! Extensional types only! Sigh. -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
