On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:05:04AM -0800, Tom Lord wrote: > > Perhaps in all cases, the optional equivalence predicate to a > constructor is mostly just a hint. > > If I make a hash table using EQV? but then modify it with: > > (dictionary-set! d k v) ; set using equal? > > instead of > > (dictionary-setv! d k v) ; set using eqv? > > > then perhaps the results are simply undefined. The non-generic > interface to (normal) association lists works that way, for example. > I've certainly used hash-table libraries that work that way. But why build in so much semantic uncertainty when the utility of changing equivalence in flight is limited to what I imagine are some pretty unusual cases? Scott
Attachment:
pgprnjRVYkNuc.pgp
Description: PGP signature