Re: Bug in documentation for eq? ?

[Pierpaolo Bernardi]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>
> If the Scheme standard states that
>
> (and (pair? x) (not (eq? (car x) (car x))))
>
> can return #t in a conforming implementation, that means that the
> standard failed to do its job for weeding out implementations with
> unusable behavior.

The standard did its job by defining eqv?

Do a (define eq? eqv?) at the start of your programs and you have what
you are asking for.