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

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Sat May 4 14:46:11 EDT 2013

Three hours ago, Jon Zeppieri 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.)?

+1, but unrelated to performance or whatever: I always viewed `eqv?'
as some kind of a semi-efficient-but-try-to-do-the-right-thing tool,
or perhaps as a tool that is kind of like `eq?' but more robust wrt
semantics (for some vague meaning of "semantics").  Without some
standard to think about, and without worrying about other
implementations, is there some use for `eqv?' that doesn't fit `eq?'
or `equal?'?

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Posted on the dev mailing list.