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 [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
