I'm not sure whether SRFI 125 and SRFI 146 allow hashmaps and hash-tables to be the same as both SRFI 125 and SRFI 146 speak of hashmaps and hash-tables, respectively, being disjoint types, which, by intention, means that they are, in particular, mutually disjoint.

Thus implementing SRFI 146 on top of SRFI 125 forces hashmaps to be at least a thin wrapper over hash-tables. This, in turn, is enough to store the comparator along, allowing to implement hashmap-comparator. What you wouldn't be able to do would be to convert arbitrary hash-tables to hashmaps (without effectively copying the data structure).

Therefore and because of the reasons, Shiro had raised, and because of the fact that a "poor man's" implementation of purely functional hash-maps by hash-tables is not in the spirit of this SRFI, I'm against removing hashmap-comparator. (It probably makes more sense to implement SRFI 125 on top of SRFI 146.)

And, after all, we now have a portable implementation of (srfi 146 hash).

Marc