[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Make unspecified return values of eq? / eqv? unspecified

[John Cowan]

Michael Sperber scripsit:

> Allow implementations to return other values than #t or #f for the
> unspecified cases, and also allow them to abort the program or raise
> an exception for those cases.

Since everything that is not #f is true, I would be very unhappy with
eq?/eqv?/equal? versions that could return other things.  Allowing
them to throw an exception would be fine.

-- 
John Cowan  http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan at ccil.org
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie