Weakness of "non-object" types
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(04 Dec 2015 10:51 UTC)
|
Re: Weakness of "non-object" types
Takashi Kato
(04 Dec 2015 12:28 UTC)
|
Re: Weakness of "non-object" types
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(04 Dec 2015 12:54 UTC)
|
Re: Weakness of "non-object" types
Takashi Kato
(04 Dec 2015 14:27 UTC)
|
Re: Weakness of "non-object" types
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(04 Dec 2015 16:51 UTC)
|
Re: Weakness of "non-object" types
John Cowan
(04 Dec 2015 15:12 UTC)
|
Re: Weakness of "non-object" types
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(04 Dec 2015 16:41 UTC)
|
Re: Weakness of "non-object" types John Cowan (05 Dec 2015 07:15 UTC)
|
Re: Weakness of "non-object" types
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(05 Dec 2015 12:50 UTC)
|
Re: Weakness of "non-object" types
John Cowan
(06 Dec 2015 04:41 UTC)
|
Re: Weakness of "non-object" types
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(06 Dec 2015 10:21 UTC)
|
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 xxxxxx@ccil.org Henry S. Thompson said, / "Syntactic, structural, Value constraints we / Express on the fly." Simon St. Laurent: "Your / Incomprehensible Abracadabralike / schemas must die!"