Works for me, as would an implementation of Shinn's proposal. ~Alexey
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Arthur A. Gleckler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:48 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> +1, with the addition of records after pairs and bytevectors after >> vectors. > > > Yes, sorry, I should have made that adjustment. I hereby revise my > proposal. Below is the language after your revision, starting from the > phrasing from R7RS draft 9: > > The eqv? procedure returns #t if... obj1 and obj2 are procedures whose > location tags are equal. > > The eqv? procedure returns #f if... obj1 and obj2 are procedures > that would behave differently (return different value(s) or have > different side effects) for some arguments. > > The above definition of eqv? allows implementations latitude in > their treatment of procedures and literals: implementations are free > either to detect or to fail to detect that two procedures or two > literals are equivalent to each other, and can decide whether or not > to merge representations of equivalent objects by using the same > pointer or bit pattern to represent both. > > On symbols, booleans, the empty list, pairs, procedures, records, > non-empty strings, vectors, and bytevectors, eq? and eqv? are > guaranteed to have the same behavior. > > _______________________________________________ > Scheme-reports mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports > _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
