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

[Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@x>]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Daniel Hartwig <mandyke@x> wrote:

On 24 May 2013 21:55, Alaric Snell-Pym <alaric@x> wrote:
> 1) What about printed representations? I feel there should be a written
> syntax for important data structures in Scheme, and that literals should
> self-evaluate. Needless to say, I don't think "Oh, just write out code
> that will construct one" is very useful, as that only solves the problem
> for literals in source code - not for being able to write and then read
> an sexpr to communicate data across a channel.
>

The problem with this is that e.g. a set is a collection of items
*and* also an equivalence predicate, which can be any arbitrary
procedure, and arbitrary procedures can not be written out.

That is true, but I imagine by far the most common case will be sets with eq?, eqv?, or equal? as their predicate. A syntax for just those sets would still be very useful.

Noah Lavine

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