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

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/

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