At Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:39:54 -0500, Carl Eastlund wrote: > I appreciate the addition of sets to PLT datatypes, but the > implementation just added to the trunk is very specific to immutable, > hash table-based sets. In the spirit of scheme/dict, which allows for > a variety of more interesting dictionary representations, can we leave > scheme/set open to other representations of sets?
Does something in the current `scheme/set' API preclude future extensibility (e.g., adding `prop:set')? _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
