-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 16-07-13 06:21, Alexey Radul wrote:
> In addition to the weight of tradition, -1, 0, and 1 have the
> benefit of being naturally correctly totally-ordered amongst
> themselves. Semantically chosen symbols are unlikely to share this
> advantage.

What exactly is ``naturally correct'' about this inherited total
ordering? Do you also think  (< (< 0 1) (< 1 0))  should be #t or #f?

If we could compare functions for equality, we could have the return
values be the respective equivalents of <, > and =. Failing that maybe
'<, '> and '= would be appropriate?

Marijn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlHk8/MACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xyNwCff1RAR3icdTPxOJCPkD6gIXqR
iJoAnjeNw6q/vzqN1RrtO42fYGGBRRzp
=e+Hq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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