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