Alex Shinn scripsit: > Unfortunately, not using eqv? to define eq? on procedures becomes > clumsy. A potential specification is as follows, though I'm open to > suggestions for improvement:
A possible improvement (which should not be taken to mean that I favor this idea) is to say that on procedures, `eq?` must return `#t` when `eqv?` must return `#t`, and must return `#f` whenever `eqv?` actually does return `#f`, but may return `#f` in cases where `eqv?` may return either `#t` or `#f` but in fact returns `#t`. But as I said, I would rather leave `eq?` and `eqv?` tied together, and allow a switch or declaration to break the link in this way if an implementation wants to provide one. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan In computer science, we stand on each other's feet. --Brian K. Reid _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
