At Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:33:02 -0400, Carl Eastlund wrote: > > [1 <text/plain; UTF-8 (7bit)>] > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Stephen Chang <stch...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > > > With that in mind, I think it would make sense to move `set-first' and > > > `set-empty?' to the primitive set (making it clear that they are > > > optional, and can be derived from `set->stream' if need be). With those > > > two in the primitive set, anything that implements all the primitives > > > should get all the derived for free, right? > > > > Oh yeah, I like that better than moving set->stream to primitives > > since they are more "standard" set operations. > > > > So the proposal for "primitive" methods is to pick one canonical set of > methods from which all the others can be derived? I'm fairly sure there's > more than one such set, and I'm not sure there's one choice that's clearly > better than the others. > > I can understand the benefits of documenting a > "suggested" set, but given that it is an arbitrary and pragmatic > distinction, I'm not sure I'd want to set them off in a section any more. > I'd just make a list in the gen:set description or something.
Sounds good to me. As long as there's a clear easy starting point for someone implementing a new set type, I think we're good. Vincent _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev