This is a comment about

http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/ComparatorsCowan

I noticed some issues and should like to make comments about this possible
SRFI/module.

General Issues:
It is my personal opinion that this module should be helpful to anyone
involved in either total orders or partial orders, such as floating-point
numbers (which form a total order if you ignore NaNs and -0.0). One way of
doing this would be to use an exception/condition to express a lack of
total order, another would be to return something other than -1, 0, 1 from
the compare procedure (perhaps return +nan.0), which would violate the
conditions for a compare procedure according to this module as specified so
far. I'm not sure what the best way to do this is, except to provide
additional procedures for floating-point numbers, and not handle partial
orders in a general way. My intuition tells me that a general approach
would be more valuable in the long term, than to special case floats.
Treating any and all partial orders that come along as special cases, just
seems wrong to me.


Issues with "Comparison syntax":

(if3) and (if**?) don't have a comparator parameter!


Issues with "Comparison procedures":

The (not=?) procedure should be removed, there is a long history of
omitting it.

All (**?) procedures should be removed.

All (chain**?) procedures should be renamed to (**?).

All (**?) procedures: [(<?), (<=?), (=?), (>?), (>=?)] should have 2 or
more parameters, as (chain**?) does now.

All (**/**?) procedures: [(</<=?), (>/>=?), (<=/<?), (>=/>?)] should have
exactly 4 parameters, as they do now.

The (</<?) procedure should be removed, it is the same as the new (<?).

The (<=/<=?) procedure should be removed, it is the same as the new (<=?).

The (>/>?) procedure should be removed, it is the same as the new (>?).

The (>=/>=?) procedure should be removed, it is the same as the new (>=?).
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports

Reply via email to