This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 32 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 32 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> > Beyond cycle counting, I see op< as more primitive than op<=: one > > establishes order, while the other allows for equivalence. > I see what you mean, I guess, > but I don't see why this "primitiveness" is a good thing. I think of op< as the fundamental ordering relation: "Does x precede y?" Looks semantically cleaner to me to specify SORT's behavior in terms of this primitive rather than the hybrid op<= ("Does x precede or equal y?" or "Does y not precede x?"). It's essentially part of the type declaration for the domain of the SORT. > Does it make sense to sort sets that are not partially ordered? Oh! That must be where you and Olin are coming from. You see the SORT predicate as a partial order on the domain of the SORT, and so op<= as the fundamental relation.