Hi John and folks On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:05:59 -0400 John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Felix scripsit: > >> Any ideas for a better name? Any considerations that >> should be taken into account? > > How about "structurally-equal?" A little long, but very clear. I'm not sure. When I read `structurally-equal?' I think in terms of "structure" equality, not in terms of "contents" equality. For example, I'd say '(1 2 3) and '(1 3 2) are structurally equal, but that's not what Felix means. OTOH, it's possible that my interpretation of "structurally" is not correct, of course. Since it's a kind of special case handling, I'd go with `equal?*' or `equal*?' or `equal=?' as Peter suggested. Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
