Formal comment #155 (defect)

eq? and eqv? should apply to all standardized objects
Reported by: 	John Cowan
Version:	5.92

Currently, the behavior of eqv? and eq? on records, conditions, ports,
syntax objects, hash tables, and promises is not defined. They should
be treated the same as pairs, vectors, and strings.


RESPONSE:

The behavior on records is specified incompletely in the chapter on
records.  The editors will make an effort to clarify this situation
for the next draft, as well as extending the specification for `eqv?'
to other mutable types.

As to immutable types such as syntax objects and conditions, it does
not seem to be in the spirit of `eqv?' to specify the semantics in
those cases: For example, the specification of `eqv?' does not cover
immutable pairs.  A similar arguments can be made for promises.