[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lexical syntax for boxes

I presume the lexical syntax in Racket et al. is to give a weak form of read-write equivalence. Is this worth preserving?

It would be useful to define eq?, eqv? and equal? on boxes. (F/X: Can of worms being opened.)

What is the justification for including optional behaviour? I understand how I work with optional libraries, since I can test for them, but how to I test for auto-boxing? Do you propose to define a feature identifier? Is this useful enough to warrant inclusion? Which implementations have auto-boxing?