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!"