[email protected] (Taylan Ulrich B.) writes: > For the record, my view on eq? and opinion on Will's proposal is as > follows.
Not to be presumptuous, but on hindsight I think it's very important that we don't incorporate a significantly backwards-incompatible change when we aren't confident about its benefits yet; I'd like to take back the phrase "for the record," and urge all proponents of the change to consider the frequency of eq?-usages which will be invalidated. Sorry if my thoughts arise from ignorance on the extent of optimizations that will be allowed by the change. :) Hearing "yes, I'm sure this will increase the total average efficiency of all plausible Scheme programs" from a couple experienced users of the language would be enough to convince me. Taylan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
