On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 20:39 -0500, Eli Barzilay wrote: > Earlier today, Peter Kourzanov wrote: > > > > Still returning to Scheme, I would like to be also in control > > concerning eqv?, [...] when I don't care about exact semantics and > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What I meant, exact semantics of eqv? Which are already loose enough. BTW...Can someone with enough grey hairs remember why we have the horde of predicates like =, eq?, equal? and eqv? What I understood is that eqv? is sort-of one-size-fits-all idea gone astray > > using something like _syscall when semantics are at stake. > > Yeah, I'm most definitely in a very different "we" -- I always care > about "exact semantics" of any code I write, and I certainly hope that > you do too, if you write any code that runs anything I interact with. Alright, fair enough. Propose a version of case that could use any equivalence predicate without having to supply the predicate to every instance of case. What would that be: Monadic style? Something like R6RS hashtable library? In presence of pattern-matching, equivalence becomes an interesting dimension. Most matchers use equal? but I wonder if that is always sufficient. Use-case - matching to detect sharing... _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss