Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv?

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Peter Kourzanov scripsit:

> > Peter, the better way to do the kind of thing you are looking for
> > is PARAMETERIZE.  I wouldn't advocate it for CASE, though.
> 
> Any pointers? Or is it the PLT/Racket thing?

SRFI 39.

-- 
John Cowan   cowan@x   http://ccil.org/~cowan
I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British
Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence
of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1.  I doubt if
the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of
equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940

_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
r6rs-discuss@x
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss