[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

"New" issue: set vs. make-set

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 113 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 113 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

I keep leaving this issue off the issues list:

10) There are two constructors, `make-set` and `set` (and likewise
for the other types).  This follows the general pattern of
`(make-){list,string,vector}` from R7RS-small.  However, the `make-`
constructors construct an object of specified size with either undefined
contents or a repeated fill element; neither of these concepts makes any
sense for sets, and only minimal sense for bags.

So it would seem reasonable to only have `set` as the constructor.
Nevertheless, Schemers expect to find a `make-` constructor, and so I
have provided one that always constructs an empty set, though `set`
can do that just as well.  Should we keep the status quo, eliminate
`make-set`, or cause it to be an alias for `set`?

John Cowan        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan          cowan@xxxxxxxx
Please leave your values                Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.                      check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel                   --Cordelia Vorkosigan