> From: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdeg...@gmail.com> > Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 14:37:26 +0200 > Cc: 麻枝忠 <maed...@gmail.com>, > 72...@debbugs.gnu.org > > Thank you for making this text better. It can be made even more accurate: > neither integers nor strings or bool-vectors are actually compared > recursively in a useful sense so we shouldn't claim that they are, and > nowadays both byte-compiled and interpreted closures are compiled but we > should note the usual intensionality problems when comparing functions. > > Here is a proposed amendment.
Doesn't that lose useful information? It only tells what is compared recursively, but doesn't tell about comparing strings or integers or bool-vectors by themselves, which is IMO important. IOW, given your proposed text, how do we explain that (equal "foo" (substring "foobar" nil -3)) => t
