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/

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