Thanks for noting this!

John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> schrieb am Do., 8. März 2018 um 15:58 Uhr:
Yes, it clearly should say "ordering predicate".  You are right that the equality predicate is required by both SRFI 114 and SRFI 128.

Will be fixed in the next (and hopefully final) draft.

Marc
 

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:12 AM, Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
I suspect that "comparison function" inadvertently referred to the srfi-114 term? 

I interpret srfi-128 that equality predicate is not optional in comparators, so we don't need to worry about how key equality is determined.


On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
The current draft states:

  The library (srfi 146) described in this SRFI requires comparators
  to provide a comparison function.

I'm guessing this means the ordering predicate, and that the equality
predicate is not required/used, so that key equality is effectively
determined by

  (and (not (less? key1 key2)) (not (less? key2 key1)))

?  It's worth making this explicit.

I assume for mapping-adjoin, the previous key object is preserved.
For mapping-set/replace/intern/update we should state what the
behavior is, even if that behavior is unspecified.  Note in SRFI 113,
set/bag-replace specify that the new key object is used.

--
Alex

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

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

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=oa8YQq670QJsajDJIblEsMJ9MoezHUAm