Jim Rees scripsit:

>  It appears none of the suggested fixes [to SRFI 116] have been implemented.

"We juggle priceless eggs in variable gravity."  This one apparently
slipped.  Assume for R7RS-large voting purposes that I have issued an
erratum about the points mentioned in the post-finalization archive.
I'll make it happen as soon as I can.

> But I'm terribly concerned about the situation with equal?.

This is a serious problem indeed; we may need to redefine these things
to use `iequal?`, a variant of `equal?` that understands ipairs.
Unfortunately the systems I tested on both implement `equal?` on records
by descending into the fields.

> For this ballot question - does a YES vote assume that conforming
> implementations will be required to ensure equal? digs into ipairs?
> For some implementations, that may be more work than (import (srfi
> 116)).

I'll say no to that.  Art Gleckler may well rule that adding iequal? is
too big a change, in which case I'll whip up another SRFI that includes
it and poll individuals about whether they'll accept this change in
their votes.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
Heckler: "Go on, Al, tell 'em all you know.  It won't take long."
Al Smith: "I'll tell 'em all we *both* know.  It won't take any longer."