[CM] Bug with sort

[Norman Gray]

Bill, hello.

On 27 Aug 2025, at 21:09, bil at ccrma.Stanford.EDU wrote:

> I think the old eq? is much preferable to the mess
> that r5rs created.  I'm tempted to leave it the
> way it is, but if others have a strong preference
> for the current way, I could make s7 treat "eq?"
> as simply shorthand for "eqv?".

Me, I've no preference either way -- I doubt there's anything I do with s7 where the issue would make a difference.

...but I'm unable to help myself, in the presence of any sentence which says or hints ‘the Standard says...’!

One of the few things (I think) I can remember off the top of my head, about the standard's prescriptions for eq?/eqv?/equal?, is that they generate successively larger equivalence classes, in the sense that anything that is eq? to x must necessarily also be eqv? and equal? to it.  There's a fine tidiness to that, but I'm sure it's sacrificable if it creates untideness elsewhere.

Best wishes,

Norman


-- 
Norman Gray  :  https://nxg.me.uk