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

Re: Lexical syntax for boxes



Alan Watson scripsit:

> "saying what the behaviour of equal? is" is not the same as specifying
> it completely. I am simply asking for language similar to that for
> records in R7RS. That is, equal? on boxes will return #t if eqv? returns
> #t but can return #t or #f if eqv? returns #f.

I think the Right Thing is to say that they behave as if they were implemented
by records.

> I do think this is the Wrong Thing, and damages Scheme as a functional
> programming language for little gain, but I lost that argument on
> records.

See my ballot at
<http://lists.scheme-reports.org/pipermail/scheme-reports/2013-May/003396.html>
on "the best possible result" vs. "the best result possible."

-- 
Only do what only you can do.               John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxx>
  --Edsger W. Dijkstra's advice
    to a student in search of a thesis