[Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings Andy Wingo (20 Jan 2012 21:35 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings Andy Wingo (20 Jan 2012 22:03 UTC)
Re: fresh empty strings Arthur A. Gleckler (20 Jan 2012 22:55 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings John Cowan (21 Jan 2012 03:36 UTC)
Re: fresh empty strings Arthur A. Gleckler (21 Jan 2012 06:56 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings Andy Wingo (21 Jan 2012 13:24 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings John Cowan (21 Jan 2012 13:34 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings Andy Wingo (21 Jan 2012 13:47 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings John Cowan (21 Jan 2012 14:38 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings Aubrey Jaffer (21 Jan 2012 18:31 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings John Cowan (21 Jan 2012 19:04 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings Ray Dillinger (21 Jan 2012 17:05 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings John Cowan 21 Jan 2012 13:34 UTC

Andy Wingo scripsit:

>     Whenever this report speaks of storage being allocated for a
>     variable or object, what is meant is that an appropriate number of
>     locations are chosen from the set of locations that are not in use,
>     and the chosen locations are marked to indicate that they are now in
>     use before the variable or object is made to denote them.
>
> Seems to imply that (eq? (string) (string)) => #f.

However, an empty string doesn't actually have any locations, so the
above procedure is vacuous.  (Same for the other empties.)  This leaves
an implementation free to do whatever it likes.

In any case, we should probably say so.  Editorial ticket #336 filed.

--
What has four pairs of pants, lives             John Cowan
in Philadelphia, and it never rains             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
but it pours?                                   cowan@ccil.org
        --Rufus T. Firefly