Re: Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08).
John Cowan 10 Nov 2015 18:17 UTC
Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit:
> It seems to be wrong, but is it? SRFI-128 says that the < must be
> transitive, but it doesn't say that the implied order= must be
> transitive. Must it be?
= and < have to work together, and it does say that = must be transitive.
The whole point of comparators is to define a total order.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org
Sound change operates regularly to produce irregularities;
analogy operates irregularly to produce regularities.
--E.H. Sturtevant, ca. 1945, probably at Yale