[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Eq? issue
Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Understood. Is there a good reason to conflate eq?-behaviour with
> field mutability, though.
The EQ? behavior follows from mutability---you can't have two mutable
objects that you've created separately share the same storage
location. That's just the way it works in R5RS.
> Also, how would one make a graph, with a specified shape, with nodes
> belonging to a variant type, each variant declared as a record with
> no fields, without further boxing?
There's something I'm not quite catching about your drift. (I'm sure
there is one.) Could you cast the concept of "specified shape" in a
language based on EQ? and or EQV? ?
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla