library separation
Alex Shinn
(09 Dec 2013 01:09 UTC)
|
Re: library separation John Cowan (09 Dec 2013 02:01 UTC)
|
Re: library separation
Alex Shinn
(09 Dec 2013 03:38 UTC)
|
Re: library separation
John Cowan
(09 Dec 2013 08:10 UTC)
|
Re: library separation
Alex Shinn
(09 Dec 2013 09:05 UTC)
|
Re: library separation John Cowan 09 Dec 2013 02:01 UTC
Alex Shinn scripsit: > Could we have a (srfi 114 base) library that provides only the > predicates and accessors, and possibly some subset of default > predicates? (notably eq? is special) I'm okay with this idea in the abstract, but I think that list is *too* short. If there's to be a base library, it should contain what a client of comparators needs: predicates (3), accessors (4), primitive applicators (5), which are often more useful than accessors, comparison syntax (7), comparison predicates (5), and maybe interval predicates (4) and min/max (2). Plus eq, eqv, and equal (3), which need to be special cased by some libraries. That's 27 to 33 identifiers. By comparison, the full library has 76 identifiers. > Nitpick: comparator-comparison-procedure? would be better named > comparator-has-comparison-procedure?. Excellent point. Fixed. > But do we need this given the accessor? Yes. The accessor always returns a procedure, even if it's an automatically generated error procedure; if you don't want to call it blindly and try to catch the error, you need the predicate. > You're overloading "compare" to mean both the abstraction and ordered > comparisons. Could we rename the ordering to be something like "less" > or "order"? The abstraction is always called a comparator. -- One Word to write them all, John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> One Access to find them, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan One Excel to count them all, And thus to Windows bind them. --Mike Champion