On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:42 AM, John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote:
We don't have an implementation of (srfi 146 hash) at present, so unless Marc rules otherwise,hashmaps will be moved to another SRFI anyway.  I have sent him a proposed draft with ordered mappings only.

That sounds like an acceptable tree rotation.

Thanks, and thanks Marc for the SRFI, I recently needed this!

--
Alex
 

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
The two libraries (srfi 146) and (srfi 146 hash) feel unbalanced.
How about:

  (srfi 146): all bindings
  (srfi 146 ordered): mapping*
  (srfi 146 hash): hashmap*

-- 
Alex

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=rBAxDxCgJFjJUssha9ixdMZU57qO20An