Scheme language standardization process
On 11/20/2012 11:43 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > But it's abundantly clear that you don't care. I think the point is that while a number of people agree with you technically that the current eqv? definition is not quite right, it's late in the R7RS process; there has been too much back and forth on the issue; and the current solution will have to do for R7RS: It provides the right answer for almost all implementations and if it doesn't, just do what you think is right. Perhaps we can tweak this for an Errata or if not for R8RS. Saying "Therefore, it appears likely that I will not be able to use R7RS" simply comes across as petulant. Just use the parts of R7RS you like, and modify/ignore the rest, without whining about it. There is no R7RS police to arrest you if you deviate in places you think R7RS gets wrong (or for other reason you need to deviate) - as I (and I am sure other implementors) will do. -- --Per Bothner per@x http://per.bothner.com/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports