> But because this language appears in the very definition of `equal?`,
> I think that's more or less self-evident.

In the definition of eqv?, the draft defines equality for some cases in terms of =, symbol=?, and char=?. Furthermore, in the very same definition of equal?, the draft defines equality for some cases in terms of eqv? So, I don't think it is asking too much to ask that "equal" here be specified somewhat more precisely.

However, if you decide otherwise, it will not be the end of the world.

Regards,

Alan

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