[r6rs-discuss] Immutable record equivalence

[Mike Sperber]

"Mark Engelberg" <mark.engelberg at gmail.com> writes:

> Reading through eqv? for records, it seems like if all the fields of a
> record are immutable, than equivalence should be defined by
> equivalence of the field contents.

No.  First off, the place for that would be `equal?', not `eqv?'. As to
why `equal?' doesn't (and shouldn't) work this way, see:

http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2005-August/000840.html

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla