[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
> gap.

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.

+1

-- 
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