Re: hash function bounds summarized John Cowan 27 Nov 2015 08:01 UTC

Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit:

> Would this work?  Am I missing something?

I think that's fine, and I am adopting the same view for SRFI 125/128.
I add a warning that if you expect your hash functions to interoperate
with the reference implementation of SRFI 69, you should write them to
accept and ignore a second argument.

At the moment, however, I am still sticking to the requirement for
non-negativity, since it is in both SRFI 69 and R5RS, even if it is
not necessary.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML Infoset, as long as it has
a door sticker saying "No information items inside".  --Eve Maler