On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Alan Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But because this language appears in the very definition of `equal?`, > > I think that's more or less self-evident. > > In the definition of eqv?, the draft defines equality for some cases in > terms of =, symbol=?, and char=?. Furthermore, in the very same definition > of equal?, the draft defines equality for some cases in terms of eqv? So, I > don't think it is asking too much to ask that "equal" here be specified > somewhat more precisely. > John added clarification per your suggestion.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
