This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 44 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 44 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:24:28PM -0500, scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > [forwarded on behalf of Oleg] > > advanced module system, I can import a particular dictionary > implementation (e.g., associative lists) with renaming > make-alist => make-mydict > alist-get => mydict-get > etc. In my own code I would use the names make-mydict, mydict-get, > etc. exclusively. If at a later time I decide to use a different > dictionary implementation, I would only need to change the module > declaration statement. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't let you use two collections of different types by the same Scheme function. For example: (define (myfunc a) (set-contains? a 3)) (myfunc (foo-set 1 2 3)) (myfunc (bar-set 4 5 6)) > The latter gave a few suggestions. > > > procedure: % value ... => % > > > Constructs a % collection with the zero or more values provided > > as its initial contents. > > Should we add that if the collection is a set, it is unspecified which > element is kept in case of duplicates? Or should duplicates be > outlawed? [Edison takes the former approach]. I prefer the former. There could be many cases where the user is generating the input to that constructor, and it would be a shame to penalize them for having duplicates. > > > procedure: *-add bag value => * > > procedure: *-add![!] bag value => * > > > Adds a single value to a bag. > > > procedure: *-add-all dest-bag source-bag => * > > procedure: *-add-all![!] dest-bag source-bag => * > > > Adds all the values in the source bag to the destination bag. > > Edison says: insert [our add] keeps the new element in case of > duplicates, but insertSeq [our add-all] keeps an unspecified element. In the case of bags, its perfectly valid to keep all the values. Did you mean sets? > <snip> occurence counts ... </snip> Yeah, this is a Good Thing. Especially for bags where duplicates may be common and contains? is insufficient. > required to return either 0 or 1). Edison also defines a procedure > > > instanceName :: c -> String > > -- the name of the module implementing c > > which can be useful, for example, for generating error messages. The > procedure is useful regardless of a particular module or OO system. I agree. In our scheme: (collection-name %) => "%" such that for example (collection-name (make-list 3)) => "list" > > For ordered collections, Edison defines procedures to view, insert or > delete the maximum and the minimum elements. I don't know how useful > this may be (many advanced collections do allow efficient > implementations of such operations -- especially for collections that > are used for priority queues or dequeues). This has come up in IRC discussions, coincidentally in discussion of implementing queues. It would be best mapped as *-get-left, *-insert-left![!], *-remove-left![!], and likewise for right, and would be defined on Bags, Sequences, and ordered collections. ...-right's would *in general* not be well defined on bags, but specific collections (like a queue) would illuminate it. > > It goes without saying that many operations in Edison -- like union or > intersection of two collections -- are perhaps too high-order or too > laborous or too infrequent to warrant their specification in > SRFI-44. It's better to stick to the bare minimum and provide > extensions only for very frequent operations. For general collections, yes. Note though that we basically have this for sets, union = add-all, difference = remove-all, and intersection = (remove-all in1 (remove-all in1 in2)). > > procedure: *-ref sequence integer => boolean > > > Returns the value stored in the sequence at the integer index > > provided. It is an error to reference an index outside the range of > > the sequence. > > The return type can't be boolean. Right? Typo. Thanks. > BTW, often a function *-ref-with-default is surprisingly useful. The > function takes an extra argument -- the default value -- and returns > literally (in the sense of eq?) that argument in case the lookup > failed. Yes, we have this on dictionary get. We probably shoud have it on ref and get for the other collection types. > > Edison's sequences, > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/hfl/hfl/edison/Seq/Sequence.hs > > are also interesting, in particular procedures lview, rview, inBounds, > adjust and zippers. However, one may also leave them out for SRFIs to > come. Yes. Its mostly the intent to specify the absolutely necessary elements of collections here. Like Scheme, one can define much from little. > > (eq? <input collection> (update-procedure <input collection>)) will > > always return a non-false value. > > Perhaps this statement is too conservative? R5RS requires that eq? (as > well as eqv? and equal?) return a boolean value. Therefore, the only > non-false return value of eq? is #t. It might be a good idea to say > that explicitly. Force of habit, sorry. > > The collection fold procedure then invokes the folding function on a > > value of the collection and the seeds, and receives from the folding > > function a proceed value followed by a like number of seed return > > values. If the termination value is non-false, > > Perhaps you meant "the proceed value" rather than a termination > value. Otherwise, "termination value" is not mentioned anywhere else in > the document. Indeed. > > In order to ensure a consistent ordering in the collection, the > > ordering function must return the same result for like inputs over > > time. > In other words, an ordering function must be a pure function, a > mapping of its arguments. One might add that an implementation of a > collection may assume > (and (equal? x x1) (equal? y y1)) ==> > (equal? (ordering-function x y) (ordering-function x1 y1)) > > Should the same requirement be applied to a equivalence function as > well? Of course. Thanks as always for your meticulous insight. Scott
Description: PGP signature