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

Re: Lexical syntax for boxes

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 111 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 111 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

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?