I like this, except now the hash sets have too little exposed. There isn't a special sequence-syntax that I can get a hold of for faster iteration when I know the type of data I'm working with. -Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Felleisen" <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> To: "Carl Eastlund" <c...@ccs.neu.edu> Cc: "J. Ian Johnson" <i...@ccs.neu.edu>, "Racket Developers" <dev@racket-lang.org> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:47:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Lists aren't sets, but have set-like operations
On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote: Here's what I propose to do now: - rename set? to generic-set?; this predicate recognizes the new all-inclusive generic set type - rename set-immutable? to set?; this predicate recognizes the pre-existing immutable hash set type - leave set-mutable? and set-weak? alone; they recognize the other two hash set types (on the mutability axis) - allow multiple-set operations to combine equal-based hash sets and lists, since both use equal? for equality Sounds like the right direction to me. -- Matthias _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
