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