-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13-01-12 17:39, Mark H Weaver wrote: > David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > > However, my mind is not set in stone on this. Does anyone else > here agree with David? Should we defend the legitimacy of this > optimization, and ask the R7RS working group to include explicit > language specifying that empty strings/vectors need not be freshly > allocated?
It seems to me that it can't hurt to ask for clarification of this issue on scheme-reports. Personally I think the intent of the standard is to say that you cannot expect (string) to be un-eq? nor eq? to (string), but let's get a broader perspective. Marijn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk8T3yoACgkQp/VmCx0OL2wG4QCeJkTP7qhm/ll6g/szLrz21uUB 0PwAoKLWlLOIIgcEC8EJKnR+6fYaV0he =8SBJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
