Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] Scheme pattern matching: the case for (case) Per Bothner (22 Dec 2010 20:37 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (22 Dec 2010 20:47 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? John Cowan (23 Dec 2010 01:49 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (23 Dec 2010 08:25 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? John Cowan (23 Dec 2010 09:13 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (23 Dec 2010 09:26 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (23 Dec 2010 09:28 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? Andre van Tonder (23 Dec 2010 15:11 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? John Cowan (24 Dec 2010 01:14 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? Eli Barzilay (24 Dec 2010 01:40 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (24 Dec 2010 08:55 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? John Cowan (24 Dec 2010 09:20 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (24 Dec 2010 09:26 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? John Cowan (25 Dec 2010 00:32 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? Adrien "Pied" Piérard (24 Dec 2010 11:51 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (24 Dec 2010 12:49 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Eli Barzilay (24 Dec 2010 16:04 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Andre van Tonder (24 Dec 2010 18:33 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? Adrien "Pied" Piérard (27 Dec 2010 01:59 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? John Cowan (27 Dec 2010 05:51 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? Adrien "Pied" Piérard (27 Dec 2010 06:22 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] case reborn Peter Kourzanov (27 Dec 2010 09:55 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] do we need to redefine eqv? Peter Kourzanov (29 Dec 2010 12:54 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (24 Dec 2010 12:24 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Eli Barzilay (24 Dec 2010 16:02 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (24 Dec 2010 18:17 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Andre van Tonder (24 Dec 2010 18:44 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Andre van Tonder (24 Dec 2010 18:40 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (24 Dec 2010 20:07 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? John Cowan (24 Dec 2010 20:40 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (24 Dec 2010 22:11 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? Shiro Kawai (24 Dec 2010 22:27 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv? Peter Kourzanov (25 Dec 2010 00:48 UTC)
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv? John Cowan (25 Dec 2010 00:29 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)

Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] Scheme pattern matching: the case for (case) Per Bothner 22 Dec 2010 20:36 UTC

On 12/22/2010 12:15 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Peter Kourzanov scripsit:
>
>> (define eqv? equal?)
>> (newline)
>> (write (case "asd" (("asd") #t)))
>> (newline)
>>
>> You'll find Tinyscheme, Minischeme, MIT, Scheme48/SCSH
>> included in your list. Ypsilon and Stalin exhibit this
>> behaviour for strings, but not for more structured data
>> like vectors.
>
> Chicken, Bigloo, Kawa, SISC, Chibi, STklos, and Scheme 9 also have this
> problem; Racket, Gauche, Gambit, Guile, Chez, SCM, Larceny, Mosh, and
> SSCM do not; Ikarus won't let you rebind EQV?.

"Problem" is a strange word in this context - that eqv? was defined as
equal? is
irrelevant to what is happening (at least for Kawa).  The reason the result
is #t is that (as you mention elsewhere):

   implementations are free to make literal strings eqv? if they have
the same content
--
	--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