[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On 25/05/13 01:41, Noah Lavine wrote:

>     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.

Quite; and as eq?-sets are somewhat explicitly implementation-dependent
in their behaviour, I would suggest we only need portable written forms
for eqv? and equal? ones, too.

> Noah Lavine


Alaric Snell-Pym

Scheme-reports mailing list