This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 76 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 76 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
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