On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Sudarshan S Chawathe <xxxxxx@eip10.org> wrote:

The motivation makes sense to me, but I am confused by the sentence
beginning with "Now that SRFI 153...". How does SRFI 153 help in this
regard? Or is it just a matter of precedent/analogy?

Well, the idea is that since SRFI 153 provides ordered sets, SRFI 113 should provide hashed sets.

Also, it seems that this note would disallow (or discourage) a SRFI-113
implementation that is not based on hash tables (e.g., based on balanced
trees).

Discourage, not disallow.

Is the intention that SRFI 113 should focus on hash table
implementations (and optionally tree/ordered ones) while SRFI 153
provides tree/ordered implementations?

Yes.

John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org

Awk!" sed Grep. "A fscking python is perloining my Ruby; let me bash

him with a Cshell! Vi didn't I mount it on a troff?" --Francis Turner