On Sun 03 Apr 2011 22:43, Ian Price <[email protected]> writes:
> scheme@(guile-user)> (= 9 10 "foo") > $1 = #f [...] > I was not sure whether or not to report this, as the behaviour is VERY > consistent and therefore, I thought, likely to have been a conscious > design choice. Amusingly, I don't think it was a conscious decision, despite the consistency. > If this is the case, you can ignore this, but it seems to me that the > reason for having type specific equality predicates is because 1. I > want the guarantee or 2. It could theoretically help the bytecode > compiler give better code. I would not be against some compile-time warning passes to check that the arguments are of the right type, but at least for things like < there's the possibility of goops extending the primitives to be generic, so that e.g "bar" could be less than "foo". So producing a warning, or indeed, even doing a typecheck, is tricky. Thank you for investigating this issue, but unless someone feels very strongly about it, I am inclined to punt :) Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
