Erratum for SRFI 113 John Cowan (09 May 2016 21:50 UTC)
Re: Erratum for SRFI 113 Arthur A. Gleckler (09 May 2016 22:10 UTC)
Re: Erratum for SRFI 113 John Cowan (09 May 2016 22:39 UTC)
Re: Erratum for SRFI 113 Arthur A. Gleckler (10 May 2016 00:09 UTC)

Erratum for SRFI 113 John Cowan 09 May 2016 21:50 UTC

Since SRFI 128 is intended as a replacement for SRFI 114, I'd like to
update the references to SRFI 114 in SRFI 113 as follows:

1) The first reference, in the Rationale: change SRFI 114 to SRFI 128.

2) The second reference, in the `set` procedure:  remove.

3) The remaining references, in the Implementation section:  change
"SRFI 114" to "SRFI 128".

4) Add the following to the "Comparator restrictions" section:

    Implementations that provide SRFI 114 but not SRFI 128 may
    require the use of SRFI 114 comparators as the arguments to
    `set`, `set-unfold`, `set-map`, `list->set`, and their `bag`
    analogues, as well as `alist->bag`.  By the same token, such
    implementations may return a SRFI 114 comparator as the result of
    `set-element-comparator` and the values of `set-comparator` and
    `bag-comparator`.  This use of SRFI 114 is deprecated.

In addition, I'd like the text "(deprecated by SRFI 128)" to be added
as an annotation to the SRFI 114 entry in final-srfis.html.
This is analogous to the annotation on the SRFI 40 entry.

Any objections to these changes?  If not, I will submit the revised SRFI
and update the sample implementation accordingly.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
Reversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I usually [before
Darwin] defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I had to do
with the [evolution]ists; and stood up for the possibility of [evolution] among
the orthodox --thereby, no doubt, increasing an already current, but quite
undeserved, reputation for needless combativeness.  --T. H. Huxley