Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). Sudarshan S Chawathe (09 Nov 2015 16:35 UTC)
Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). John Cowan (09 Nov 2015 17:37 UTC)
Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). Sudarshan S Chawathe (09 Nov 2015 22:09 UTC)
Re: Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). Sudarshan S Chawathe (10 Nov 2015 15:05 UTC)
Re: Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Nov 2015 15:14 UTC)
Re: Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). Sudarshan S Chawathe (10 Nov 2015 16:03 UTC)
Re: Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Nov 2015 16:57 UTC)
Re: Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (10 Nov 2015 20:40 UTC)
Re: Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). Sudarshan S Chawathe (10 Nov 2015 21:16 UTC)
Re: Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). Sudarshan S Chawathe (10 Nov 2015 21:17 UTC)

Re: Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 10 Nov 2015 20:40 UTC

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