On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 13:01 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> That may well be, but we shouldn't change Scheme because Bigloo
> doesn't implement something correctly.  That it gets case/eqv? wrong
> is hardly important, since it gets tail calls wrong too. It's Not
> Scheme.
>

Well, it all started with pattern matching, which is also not
Scheme (yet, hopefully), and this discussion has now digressed
from the merits of extending (case) to do pattern matching into
fine details of eqv? R*RS standards.

Summarizing, I think it needs to be re-thought what it means for
(case) to always use eqv? Especially with pattern matching in
place, having all sorts of switch-like constructs is highly
undesirable (match, case, match-lambda etc. etc. etc.)

And, should the user not be in control of what equivalence
predicate he's using with (cond), (match), (match-lambda) etc.
Do we want to go the assoc/assv/assq way?

Pjotr.

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