> But because this language appears in the very definition of `equal?`,In the definition of eqv?, the draft defines equality for some cases in terms of =, symbol=?, and char=?. Furthermore, in the very same definition of equal?, the draft defines equality for some cases in terms of eqv? So, I don't think it is asking too much to ask that "equal" here be specified somewhat more precisely.
> I think that's more or less self-evident.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports