-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 16-07-13 06:21, Alexey Radul wrote: > In addition to the weight of tradition, -1, 0, and 1 have the > benefit of being naturally correctly totally-ordered amongst > themselves. Semantically chosen symbols are unlikely to share this > advantage.
What exactly is ``naturally correct'' about this inherited total ordering? Do you also think (< (< 0 1) (< 1 0)) should be #t or #f? If we could compare functions for equality, we could have the return values be the respective equivalents of <, > and =. Failing that maybe '<, '> and '= would be appropriate? Marijn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlHk8/MACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xyNwCff1RAR3icdTPxOJCPkD6gIXqR iJoAnjeNw6q/vzqN1RrtO42fYGGBRRzp =e+Hq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
