Pierpaolo Bernardi <olopie...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: >> >> If the Scheme standard states that >> >> (and (pair? x) (not (eq? (car x) (car x)))) >> >> can return #t in a conforming implementation, that means that the >> standard failed to do its job for weeding out implementations with >> unusable behavior. > > The standard did its job by defining eqv? > > Do a (define eq? eqv?) at the start of your programs and you have what > you are asking for.
Except efficiency. It appears you are confused about what I am asking for. I am perfectly fine with the possibility (eq? 0 0) => #f I am not fine with the possibility (eq? (car x) (car x)) => #f But it is clear that there is no interest in providing sane invariants for Guile programmers, so we can just quit this absurdity. -- David Kastrup
