John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> 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.

Oh yes, given the mathematical definition of a total order, there
doesn't seem any room for ambiguity there.  I was being pedantic on the
explicit properties enumerated for the ordering predicate.

Then the answer to the original question

> The main question here is whether the SRFI requires comparators to
> totally order all elements accepted by their type-test predicates, or
> whether it is OK if none (1st example) or only some (2nd) are ordered.

should simply be that a total ordering is indeed required, if I'm not
mistaken.  After all the SRFI says:

> The ordering predicate returns #t if the first object precedes the
> second in a **total order**, and #f otherwise.

Taylan