[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv?

And now comes a question from a user who reads all your debates in
awe, but can't help thinking there's a lot of hair splitting involved.

"Why not just parameterize CASE or whatever pattern-matcher with an
equivalence predicate?"

Wouldn't this solve many problems we read here?
Would it create enough others problems to be disqualified?

I believe that

(case-with my-equality-predicate foo
 ((bar) quux)
 (else rofl)))

(I hope my intervention is not too off topic…)


Français, English, 日本語, 한국어

Scheme-reports mailing list