On 05/20/2013 06:29 AM, John Cowan wrote: > I'm writing this as an individual contributor to WG2 and the Scheme > community, not as the chair of WG2. > > I would like to ask people to review and send criticisms of two > proto-SRFIs that I intend to propose for R7RS-large. These will both > become SRFIs (the first is submitted already, the second will be soon) > and then will be voted on by the WG after SRFI finalization. The more > early commentary from the community the better. > > The first is on sets, bags, integer sets, and enumeration > sets. The current editor's draft is in SRFI format at > <http://ccil.org/~cowan/temp/srfi-sets.html>. Send feedback to either > list or directly to me. Looks good to me. 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. 2) I feel that integer-set-min! and integer-set-max! should have a verb in there, as they do something (in fact, as written, the name draws the eye to "set" as a verb, suggesting it's some kind of "set-most-negative-fixnum!" operation...). How about integer-set-take-min! and integer-set-take-max!? ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports