Re: [Scheme-reports] clarification of proposal for eqv?/eq? on procedures taylanbayirli@gmail.com (09 Jun 2013 12:52 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] clarification of proposal for eqv?/eq? on procedures John Cowan (09 Jun 2013 14:12 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] clarification of proposal for eqv?/eq? on procedures John Cowan 09 Jun 2013 14:12 UTC

Taylan Ulrich B. scripsit:

> This raises for me the question though, may eq? return #t for empty
> strings, empty vectors, or empty bytevectors, where eqv? returns #f?

No, because of the sentence at the beginning of 6.1:

     Of the equivalence predicates described in this section, eq? is
     the finest or most discriminating, equal? is the coarsest,
     and eqv? is slightly less discriminating than eq?.

--
John Cowan      cowan@ccil.org
        "Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U."  --K.X.U.

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