Re: Issue: HASH-TABLE-TESTS (Version 1)

[masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

I am less at ease about adding = and STRING= than I am about EQUALP.
Certainly many other test functions could be added. However, given that we
are only going to require a limited set, which ones should be required?

So, why don't we leave the proposal as is, and merely note in the
discussion that these extensions are also a possibility but not included in
this proposal. 

Editorial notes: the description again says "vendor" for "implementor".
Rather than arguing whether = is more "major" than EQUALP, it might be
simpler to remove the claim that the proposal "Makes hash tables usable
with the major, remaining equivalence predicate" and stick to "Makes hash
tables more useful."

Change 'as a "side effect"' to "as a side benefit".