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

[Andre van Tonder <andre@x>]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Peter Kourzanov wrote:

> To answer Andre as well,
>> On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 15:55 -0500, Andre van Tonder wrote:
>> It doesn't matter:
>>
>> From R6RS:
>
> I agree that it shouldn't mutate the original slot of eqv?, as
> prescribed by 7.1. But as I read it, R6RS says nothing about the extent
> of the new eqv? *binding* (#3 above) (unlike R5RS, for the record). And
> thus it can vary wildly depending on how (case) was defined.

No, because CASE refers to the original (immutable and unmutated)
slot of EQV

Andre


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