[r6rs-discuss] Immutable record equivalence

Mark Engelberg mark.engelberg at gmail.com
Tue Aug 14 15:07:22 EDT 2007


Yes, I do believe that the "intuitive" thing is for equal? on all
records to descend through the fields, and have read the arguments
suggesting that this is too costly or problematic.

But that is not really my point here.  I'm making a stronger claim
about how _immutable_ records should be treated with respect to eqv?.
The whole point of immutable records is to be able to treat immutable
records as equivalent if they contain the exact same data.

--Mark

On 8/14/07, Mike Sperber <sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>
> "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
>



More information about the r6rs-discuss mailing list