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.
Alex Shinn scripsit: > I think strong typing with unique objects is better here. They are > less ambiguous, more efficient for many of the utilities, and as you > say can be used to access the other members of the enum-set. I grant these advantages, but the simplicity and convenience of symbols are real advantages too. I'm trying to work out a design in which either symbols or unique objects wrapping symbols can be used. > A common pattern I use in Chibi for data structures is to have a > base library with just the type predicate and -contains? utility, > and constructors go in a separate library. Thus other libraries > could provide APIs that allow sets as arguments for convenience, > without themselves incurring any real load overhead. I don't really understand this use case. If you accept sets as arguments, what do you want to be able to do with them? -- How they ever reached any conclusion at all <cowan@xxxxxxxx> is starkly unknowable to the human mind. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett