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.
Kevin Wortman scripsit: > Actually any Scheme object _except comparators_, right? No, they can contain comparators if you use default-comparator. Using the sample implementation of default-comparator, performance will suck, because all comparators will hash to the same value. But everything should work, and a better implementation-specific version of default-comparator will work better. > May a multi-values object be an element? If so there are some minor picky > edits, for example "The value that *mapper* returns is added to the set" > should be "The object that *mapper* returns is added to the set". Multiple values aren't an object (though they are implemented that way in some Schemes). Calling (set default-comparator (values 1 2)) doesn't work reliably. > "Sets are a standard part of the libraries of many high-level programming > languages..." > You might want to cite SRFI 1 list sets here too. Done. > "and can be optimized" sounds awkward, consider rewording to "and allows > for optimization". Done. > "hysterical raisins" should be "historical reasons" right? It's a joke: see <http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hysterical-reasons.html> > "Implementations must not require the provision of both a comparison > procedure and a hash function." > Any reason for this? An implementor might want to use a hybrid hash/tree > data structure such as a treap. I think it's a reasonable compromise between implementer freedom and user obligation. But you could talk me out of this. > "Note that this differs from the SRFI 1 analogue because it does not return > a useful value." > IMO #t and #f qualify as useful; consider rewording to "because it does not > return an element of the set." Done. > I think the arguments to the set-map example are in the wrong order. Fixed. The example hadn't been updated since the change to comparators. > As discussed previously, I think it would be friendlier for the > documentation for set-map to say something like: > > "Note that, when *proc* defines a non-1:1 mapping, some of the mapped > objects may be equivalent according to *comparator,* and in this case > duplicate elements are omitted as in the set constructor. For example, > > (set-map (lambda (x) (quotient x 2)) integer-comparator (set > integer-comparator 1 2 3 4 5)) > => (set integer-comparator 0 1 2)" Done. > Likewise, it would be friendly to add this sentence to the documentation > for list->set, list->set!, and bag->set : > "Duplicate elements are omitted as in the set constructor." Done. > Kevin Wortman Thanks for the extensive review. The new version will be pushed to ccil.org shortly. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@xxxxxxxx I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940