Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@now.het.brown.edu> writes:

> Understood.  Is there a good reason to conflate eq?-behaviour with
> field mutability, though.

The EQ? behavior follows from mutability---you can't have two mutable
objects that you've created separately share the same storage
location.  That's just the way it works in R5RS.

> Also, how would one make a graph, with a specified shape, with nodes
> belonging to a variant type, each variant declared as a record with
> no fields, without further boxing?

There's something I'm not quite catching about your drift.  (I'm sure
there is one.)  Could you cast the concept of "specified shape" in a
language based on EQ? and or EQV? ?

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla