taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich B.) writes:

> For the record, my view on eq? and opinion on Will's proposal is as
> follows.

Not to be presumptuous, but on hindsight I think it's very important
that we don't incorporate a significantly backwards-incompatible change
when we aren't confident about its benefits yet; I'd like to take back
the phrase "for the record," and urge all proponents of the change to
consider the frequency of eq?-usages which will be invalidated.  Sorry
if my thoughts arise from ignorance on the extent of optimizations that
will be allowed by the change. :)  Hearing "yes, I'm sure this will
increase the total average efficiency of all plausible Scheme programs"
from a couple experienced users of the language would be enough to
convince me.

Taylan

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