John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> schrieb am Di., 13. Dez. 2016 um 17:40 Uhr:

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:

One way to cure the defect could be to demand that set-comparator and bag-comparator provide comparison procedures at least when the implementation of sets and bags is based on the comparison function of its elements (and not only on the equality predicate and the hash function).

My inclination is to leave this as a quality of implementation issue.

Even if implementations resolved this issue in one way or the other, the standard itself, SRFI 113, would still remain inconsistent.

However, an implementation (making use of the comparison procedure) cannot really resolve this issue because currently SRFI 113 specifically says that comparison procedures are *not* provided (and this is detectable using comparator-ordered? of SRFI 128.

Marc