Re: [Scheme-reports] Equality of records

[Ray Dillinger <bear@x>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/01/2012 10:38 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Draft 6 requires that `equal?` recursively descend into records.  However,
> the WG did not explicitly vote for this feature, nor is it mentioned
> in SRFI 9, which is our source document for records.  In addition,
> R6RS explicitly forbids it, requiring that all objects except pairs,
> vectors, strings, and bytevectors be compared with `eqv?`. 

I think that R6 is logically inconsistent in this point, and that
the prohibition is probably due to an oversight rather than due
to a decision.

If it requires pairs, vectors, and strings. to be recursively compared,
then it is not sensible to require records *not* to be recursively
compared.

The obvious implementation technique for any problem you'd use
records for, in fact, if you don't have records, *NECESSARILY*
uses one of the types that 'equal?' recursively compares.

				Bear


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPT8q4AAoJEAOzWkqOibfN1dMH/27BT68mohSeuiWbU3vEjt9Y
em4Eh7AeZT0De35rKLXmtuf7P/ew/5niFT39js8hy4VFS1YuNAaJ412YbWKvAOck
BM4BKzFFuei/3Y0N5jVO1Aj/82dELCOHohIqJ1Ay+M5gYIc71sAjnMcOO0DNarv2
+YF1BiM8B8jj11wMhST2kaObXTiy/1RP0DX9nuhsSS+i2qd8N11wn5rRoIAQxeQq
g78fSwM/e/QIMnydyiPKDwEuQ14ggUAE63xm0NXBCxITXWB5Luur/ejNX2Niwq7w
K9N9s3031gCyCaVtmcsZtxU10kAwTHBewXZKWxbghrnsrCR/ny5y1hqT4Ll3Ufg=
=QZ69
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports