Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators Daphne Preston-Kendal (16 Jul 2021 16:20 UTC)
Re: Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Jul 2021 17:17 UTC)
Re: Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators Daphne Preston-Kendal (16 Jul 2021 19:46 UTC)
Re: Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Jul 2021 20:21 UTC)
Re: Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Jul 2021 20:34 UTC)
Re: Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators Arthur A. Gleckler (02 Oct 2021 19:09 UTC)
Re: Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators Arthur A. Gleckler (27 Mar 2022 23:34 UTC)
Re: Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (19 Apr 2022 07:11 UTC)
Re: Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators John Cowan (28 Apr 2022 13:37 UTC)
Re: Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (28 Apr 2022 14:07 UTC)

Re: Hash functions of the {eq,eqv,equal}-comparators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 19 Apr 2022 07:11 UTC

In general, I would like to see specialized eq? and eqv? comparators
in (scheme comparators) where one can just set the type predicate and
ordering predicate. This would be the correct abstraction for a
general Scheme where an eq?/eqv?-bases hash function cannot be modeled
by a Scheme procedure and would also work with (R6RS) Schemes where
procedures have no identity exposed by Scheme predicates.

Am Mo., 28. März 2022 um 01:34 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler
<xxxxxx@speechcode.com>:
>
> Ping.
>
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 12:09 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 1:34 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> PS That said, I yet don't see any advantage of SRFI 128's current requirement. The change you propose is probably safe (at least as long as it is understood that the hash function won't, in general, be more efficient than the default hash function).
>>
>>
>> John, since you're the author of SRFI 128,I'm writing to check whether you have an opinion about this discussion.  The discussion between Daphne and Marc petered out back in July, but I want to make sure that the issue is resolved.
>>
>> Here's the archive of this thread:
>>
>> https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-128/dates/2021/07/
>>
>> Thanks.