[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Add symbol=? and boolean=?

[Per Bothner]

Nils M Holm wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:56:18AM -0800, bear wrote:
>> Per's idea of making eq? undefined on values ....

> I hope that the idea is to make eq? only undefined for /two/
> values ...

I'm not suggesting that we change the semantics of
eq? for Scheme.  I was just making/concurring with the point that
the semantics of eq? are rather ugly, and if you wanted to
design a new Lisp-like language it would be cleaner to not
do things this way.  But changing that semantics of eq? is
this drastic way is not appropriate for R6RS.b

 > But leave it defined for one value and one immutable
 > object, i.e.:
 > (eq? 'x 'x) => #t

Well, a symbol, since it is immutable, is really a value,
not an object, so that would be undefined too, in such
a proposal - which I'm not making.

 > (eq?  1  1) => undefined

This is I believe already the case.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per at bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/