Re: GH replacement proposal (includes a bit of Unicode)

[Bruce Korb]

Marius Vollmer wrote:
> 
> address@hidden (Paul Jarc) writes:
> 
> > Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> The names scm_is_true and scm_is_false don't fit into the schema,
> >> since true and false are no types.
> >
> > We might think of these scm_is_* functions more generally as
> > predicates, some of which happen to be type predicates.
> 
> Right; that's what I had in mind.  I also propose scm_is_eq, for
> example.

Would that yield #t if its argument were the `eq' operator, or
would it work on two arguments and yield #t if the two arguments
were equal?  :-)