Peter Kourzanov scripsit: > 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
EQV? is object equality, the identity of indiscernibles. EQ? is an variant of EQV? that can answer #f on on characters and numbers in exchange for (hopefully) better performance. = is type-specific equality on numbers, and corresponds to things like CHAR=? and STRING=?. EQUAL? was originally structural equality, but the exact way it works is historical: it descends into pairs, vectors, and strings, but works like EQV? on all other types. Programmers are encouraged to substitute a different structural-equality predicate if EQUAL? doesn't suit their needs: it is not primitive. The proposed EQUAL=? will be like EQUAL, but will employ = rather than EQV? to compare numbers. -- Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers John Cowan Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is [email protected] Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
