Alex Shinn scripsit: > You seem intent that eq? and eqv? on procedures should > not be tied to each other. This is already so in the 9th draft, > and no one is trying to revert this (I had earlier queried if it > was really needed but immediately dropped the issue when > I found there was opposition).
Actually, my change 1051 omitted reference to procedures; I have undone that in change 1091:739ce8ae6bd3. > I'd like to make a counter-proposal. We keep the separation > of eq? and eqv? on procedures as in the 9th draft. In WG2 > we provide a declare syntax which can be used for declaring > common optimizations, such as fixnum-only, or various levels > of safety. We can then provide a standard declaration such as I am working on such a thing already in LibraryDeclarationsCowan; they are integrated with library declarations, so you just put them in your library files. I have also added a `declare` syntax to allow them in Scheme programs. > (declare procedures-have-no-location) Added to the above page. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Uneasy lies the head that wears the Editor's hat! --Eddie Foirbeis Climo _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
