Re: [Scheme-reports] eq? and eqv? for records
taylanbayirli@gmail.com 14 Feb 2014 21:36 UTC
Sascha Ziemann <ceving@gmail.com> writes:
> So R7RS does not guaranty that the following will always return #f:
>
> (define-record-type :identifier (identifier) identifier?)
> (eq? (identifier) (identifier))
No, it doesn't guarantee that.
(Currently it doesn't guarantee *anything* because the location-in-store
semantics for records have apparently been overseen, but that's just me
being pedantic; I think the *intent* was that the example you've given
is explicitly left unspecified as a special-case even though the rest of
the semantics is mostly obvious/intuitive.)
> In order to be sure I have to add a dontcare slot with a dontcare
> value?
You don't need to give it a value, the constructor doesn't need to take
values for all fields. For example:
(define-record-type <token>
(token) token?
(dummy-slot token-dummy-slot set-token-dummy-slot!))
(eq? (token) (token)) => #false
Taylan
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports