Re: Weakness of "non-object" types John Cowan 05 Dec 2015 07:15 UTC
Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit: > (As far as I know, eq? is ill-defined on characters as well as numbers > because characters too sometimes end up being non-immediate. Anyway, > whether characters fall in the same category doesn't matter much.) That's why I didn't bring them up in my previous message. > Thing is, we have no proof that the programmer doesn't care about a > certain number anymore (or character, symbol, ...). Again, what's the point of non-strong hashtables except to allow the reclamation of storage? You haven't addressed this question. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan firstname.lastname@example.org Henry S. Thompson said, / "Syntactic, structural, Value constraints we / Express on the fly." Simon St. Laurent: "Your / Incomprehensible Abracadabralike / schemas must die!"