[racket-dev] racket2 suggestion: removing (or extending) eqv?

From: Jon Zeppieri (zeppieri at gmail.com)
Date: Sat May 4 12:03:19 EDT 2013

Just for performance. No other reason.


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> I'm curious: why do you want all characters to be eq? to each other instead
> of just equal??
> Robby
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Jon Zeppieri <zeppieri at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since incompatible future changes seem to be coming up a lot, I
>> thought I'd add one more. What do the members of this list think of
>> removing eqv? all of its associated machinery (e.g., memv, hasheqv,
>> etc.)?
>> (Along with this change, it would be nice if characters could all be
>> immediately represented, so that those with equal code points would be
>> eq? RIght now, all unicode code points can be encoded in 22 bits, I
>> think. I'm not so familiar with racket's current representation of
>> characters, but I figure that they could easily be fit into a single
>> machine word on 64-bit builds. I don't know how difficult it would be
>> on 32-bit builds. And, of course, there's no guarantee that the number
>> of code points won't increase significantly.)
>> Alternatively (and following Sam's line of thought from [1]), eqv?
>> could be extended to cover all of racket's immutable data structures.
>> In this case eqv? should also be made generic so that user-defined
>> immutable data structures can use it, as well.
>> [1] http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2013-April/057510.html
>> _________________________
>>   Racket Developers list:
>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

Posted on the dev mailing list.