On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:14 AM, David T. Pierson <d...@mindstory.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 06:13:09AM -0700, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> Should we change `case' to use `equal?' instead of `eqv?'? I can't >> think of a good reason to stick with `eqv?'. > > My first reaction to this was that such a change would eliminate one of > the motivations for using `case': getting the (perhaps insignificant?) > performance improvement of using `eqv?' in a conditional when you know > the key type is suitable for it. > > However it occurs to me that since the datums in a `case' clause are > always literals, couldn't the expansion of `case' be "smart" enough to > use the appropriate comparison function (eq?/eqv?/equal?) given the type > of the datum?
I think that equal? will always terminate quickly when its input is a symbol/number/boolean so the macro doesn't need to do anything special in that case. Robby ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
