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

[Adrien "Pied" Piérard <axioplase+r6rs@x>]

And now comes a question from a user who reads all your debates in
awe, but can't help thinking there's a lot of hair splitting involved.

"Why not just parameterize CASE or whatever pattern-matcher with an
equivalence predicate?"

Wouldn't this solve many problems we read here?
Would it create enough others problems to be disqualified?

I believe that

(case-with my-equality-predicate foo
 ((bar) quux)
 (else rofl)))


(I hope my intervention is not too off topic…)


Cheers.

-- 
Français, English, 日本語, 한국어

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