Jens Axel Søgaard <xxxxxx@soegaard.net> writes:

> I was just saying *if* you make that interpretation, you need to
> type check all arguments.

Apologies for harping on about this, but my initial post contained a
counter-example: an implementation of = that meets the criteria of your
interpretation, yet does not type-check all args.

> If you don't you end up with unspecified
> behaviour. In srfi-67 the choice was made to require type-checking of
> arguments to compare functions in order to avoid unspecified
> situations.

That is fine by me, but it is not the rationale given by the srfi
document, which instead claims that type-checking of all args is implied
by the R5RS requirement for transitivity. The point of this thread was
to ascertain whether the latter is actually the case. It isn't.

I am quite happy to leave it at that. It is only a minor issue that does
not affect the core of the specification. Anyone stumbling across it
will hopefully read this discussion.

Matthias.