Re: Partial orders. Re: Comments on SRFI 128 Draft 5 (2015-11-08). John Cowan 11 Nov 2015 05:51 UTC
Sudarshan S Chawathe scripsit: > This answers that question. It is probably a reasonable design choice, > and certainly the prerogative of the SRFI author. However, it would be > very helpful if the SRFI were very explicit in this regard. I have strengthened the wording in the definition section and other places in the draft. > I will mention also that it may be useful to consider comparators that > reflect underlying partial (not total) orders. A textbook use case > would be using a sorting library (that uses comparators) to sort plane > tickets that are only partially ordered by preference: x is better than > y if x is both a cheaper and a shorter flight than y. Fair enough, but I think it's an unreasonable burden on implementers to force them to make the procedures specified in the SRFI to work correctly if there is only a partial order. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound free-range chickens (except they have teeth, arms instead of wings, and dinosaurlike tails). --Elyse Grasso