[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Two suggestions about record identity
- To: srfi-99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Two suggestions about record identity
- From: "Alexey Radul" <axofch@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:25:32 -0400
- Delivered-to: srfi-99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=HkicsAmuyTwaimw2N4Ac5h6t4joIL1l8NA0k9E4OT8A=; b=l/R8DYrqXcKgf5eZHKH19Fa65bHacvcuV47As/gLV3h3+hQcB4rs/figEduqwg8uIU WuRfOSsW5RAYbb4Xk8CrfS005s4fn7py8aAn043IVW7QZ4EPsGMQVTQ0nqg2PhZw7sRH 9xSBUYN6rmbWa2Cc4mNk8KNMRlZtQU7u2hRyU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=PbYoTyG4IS8vzL9So4Tz5sZ09XH0Q+7HBHp9w/lux4KfLR/yVOoAUvgHLk9tDr0Pyb Nz84CGIyz3fSqtoeuuboCD2iHQPn85eBAa+uV9pGlDLUljqM21R5V+DmZAYQOvqTQm87 ROY6LZSh/javjwLrhRyqM5/pdqMcax8I6dWCI=
The current wording seems to prevent an implementation from making
equal? a generic function which could have user-specified behavior on
certain records (while perhaps defaulting to mimicking eqv?), whereas
I would assume such an implementation would be desirable. Please
clarify as to whether you intend to permit something like that.
Perhaps this can be accomplished by the following:
"Implementations are permitted to provide mechanisms (such as a
generic operation facility) for users to customize the behavior of
equal? on records. In default of the exercise of such mechanisms, two
ERR5RS records are equal? if and only if they are eqv?."
Also, please specify (or at least explicitly leave unspecified)
whether two ERR5RS records without fields are eqv?.