bear wrote:
> A minor note regarding the wording in the draft under "Equivalence"...
>
>    Collections are considered equivalent with respect to scheme's
>    equal? operator when they contain a like number of values, and
>    where each value in one collection is equal? to a value in the
>    second collection.
>
>    ...Further conditions valid only on sequences elided ....
>
> Taking this literally, and using unordered bags for our collections,
> I observe that if one bag contains 2 b's and 1 a, it is equal? to
> another bag that contains 1 b and 2 a's.
>
> This is probably not what you want.

When I wrote up my comprehensive review/overhaul/recommendation for the
collection procedures, I changed this so that they're only equivalent if
(*-count value) is the same for both collections.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd