"New" issue: set vs. make-set

[John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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