[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lexical syntax for boxes
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> > However, R7RS abandoned this for records, presumably for a good
> > reason.
> R7RS-small left this unspecified, leaving room for WG2 to fill in the
If we want to. But I argue that we don't: rather than extending
`equal?` in idiosyncratic ways that may or may not be what people
actually want, we should provide a way for them to get what they want.
> I think the best thing all around is to treat boxes as what they are -
> simple single-valued records - and let the record specification apply
> to them. Anything else is confusing.
Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan
"Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? cowan@xxxxxxxx
Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused.
--George Starbuck, Pith and Vinegar