On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Peter Kourzanov wrote: > To answer Andre as well, >> On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 15:55 -0500, Andre van Tonder wrote: >> It doesn't matter: >> >> From R6RS: > > I agree that it shouldn't mutate the original slot of eqv?, as > prescribed by 7.1. But as I read it, R6RS says nothing about the extent > of the new eqv? *binding* (#3 above) (unlike R5RS, for the record). And > thus it can vary wildly depending on how (case) was defined.
No, because CASE refers to the original (immutable and unmutated) slot of EQV Andre _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
