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

Re: eq? vs. equal?

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 37 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 37 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, felix wrote:

> If I understand the code correctly, the NAME may be a string, right?
> So eq? won't suffice.

Thanks Felix. The current draft srfi language says "NAME will be one of
the OPTION's option-names as encountered by args-fold." This could be
interpreted to require eq? equality based on this clause of R5RS:

  * OBJ1 and OBJ2 are pairs, vectors, or strings that denote the
    same locations in the store (section *note Storage model::).

Draft language ok?

Calling all lawyers: this eq? vs. equal? issue is an example of a nit-pic
for which implementation consistancy is important, but this type of issue
hasn't yet been discussed in this archive. I doubt that is because of any
special brilliance on the draft author's part, but more likely because it
hasn't been combed too well. Please speak up if you see any other subtle
issues while the SRFI is in the draft stage.

  -Tony Carrico