Currently we say that equal? must detect loops, but we don't say what it should do. The wording in R6RS is "The equal? predicate returns #t if and only if the (possibly infinite) unfoldings of its arguments into regular trees are equal as ordered trees." (Better wording would be good.)

Possibilities: R6RS, signal an error, return #f.

summaryEditorial: Add language saying what `equal?` does in the presence of circularitiesSay what `equal?` does in the presence of circularities

descriptionCurrently we say that `equal?` must detect loops, but we don't say what it should do. I think everyone assumes this means doing what R6RS does. The wording there is "The `equal?` predicate returns `#t` if and only if the (possibly infinite) unfoldings of its arguments into regular trees are equal as ordered trees."
This doesn't strike me as very clear, but we'll need to use if we can't find anything better.Currently we say that `equal?` must detect loops, but we don't say what it should do. The wording in R6RS is "The `equal?` predicate returns `#t` if and only if the (possibly infinite) unfoldings of its arguments into regular trees are equal as ordered trees." (Better wording would be good.)
Possibilities: R6RS, signal an error, return `#f`.

resolution␣wontfix

statusnewclosed

This is being handled editorially, since the objection that led to its appearance as a ballot ticket is now withdrawn.