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@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

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