[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.

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
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