Open issues for SRFI 113 John Cowan (04 Dec 2013 04:37 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 Kevin Wortman (08 Dec 2013 04:35 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 John Cowan (08 Dec 2013 18:05 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 John Cowan (08 Dec 2013 18:15 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 Kevin Wortman (09 Dec 2013 00:43 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 John Cowan (09 Dec 2013 08:04 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 Alex Shinn (09 Dec 2013 08:16 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 John Cowan (09 Dec 2013 15:59 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 Alex Shinn (09 Dec 2013 00:39 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 John Cowan (09 Dec 2013 17:13 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 Alex Shinn (10 Dec 2013 01:18 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 John Cowan (10 Dec 2013 21:35 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 Alex Shinn (11 Dec 2013 00:55 UTC)
Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 John Cowan (16 Dec 2013 07:12 UTC)

Re: Open issues for SRFI 113 John Cowan 08 Dec 2013 18:15 UTC

Scripsi:

> I agree.  My only reservation is that hash tables will have to support
> naked equality predicates for backward compatibility with SRFI 69 and
> R6RS.  But I think we can allow them in that SRFI and deprecate them
> instead of allowing them anywhere.  Removed.

I have added this paragraph:

    Implementations must support any comparator that provides
    both a comparison procedure and a hash function, as well
    as the comparators `eq-comparator`, `eqv-comparator`, and
    `equal-comparator`.  Implementations may support other
    comparators, possibly with some degradation of performance.

This permits an all-singing all-dancing implementation to use hash tables
if a hash function is available, trees if a comparison procedure is
available, and lists if neither is available.

--
I suggest you solicit aid of my followers       John Cowan
or learn the difficult art of mud-breathing.    xxxxxx@ccil.org
        --Great-Souled Sam                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan