Re: [Scheme-reports] Seeking review of sets and hash tables proposals

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Evan Hanson scripsit:

> Could hash-table-delete! be extended to return true when a value has
> been removed, false otherwise? This would be backwards-compatible with
> SRFI-69 & R6RS and match the behavior of some existing implementations,
> and you've already set a (useful IMHO) precedent for this pattern with
> the set, bag, enum- & integer-set variants, as well as bag-increment!
> and -decrement!.

Done.

> I find {integer,enum}-set-{min,max}! slightly confusing. They seem to me
> to do two things at once, and it's unclear from their names exactly what
> those are. If they're necessary, renaming them to e.g.
> integer-set-remove-min! would make their purposes more clear.

Delete rather than remove, in accordance with the pattern already set
(delete by key, remove by predicate).

> Also, I believe "set-length?" should be "set-length" (on the proposal
> page -- it's already the latter in the reference implementation), and
> "set<=?" and "set>=?" should be "enum<=?" and "enum>=?" under the
> "Enumeration sets" section.

Yes, mere typos.  Fixed.  I added `enum=?` too, although it is a mere
extension of `eq?` to multiple arguments.

-- 
Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so,         John Cowan
is a tax on income.  --Lord Macnaghten (1901)           cowan@x

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports