I will echo Alex's sentiments as my own too: It would be very nice to
have ordered sets as a final SRFI and hopefully in the large standard as
well.  I too have found them useful.  It would be especially strange, I
think, to have ordered maps but not ordered sets.

I was hoping that one of the authors of the closely related SRFIs would
adopt SRFI 153. (I realize that may fall under the "no good deed goes
unpunished" banner.)  If there are no other volunteers, or if additional
help is needed by a volunteer, then I will be glad to volunteer my
services.

Regards,

-chaw

> From: John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:27:08 -0400
> Subject: Re: Withdrawn SRFI 153: Ordered Sets
> To: "Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com>
> Cc: Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>, xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org
>
> The part of the implementation that's just a wrapper around mappings is
> available in the repo.  But the entries in the TODO file represent stuff
> that works only on ordered collections, and therefore has to go down into
> the B-tree implementation in the (nieper *) libraries.  That's what I
> decided I wasn't interested in pursuing.
>
> The SRFI itself is indeed in good shape.
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:21 AM Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Isn't this just a thin wrapper around SRFI 146?  I do need ordered sets
> >> for one of my projects, if there's not much to be done it would be nice =
> to
> >> finalize this.
> >>
> >
> > =E2=80=8BI respect John's decision.  By the time SRFI 153 was withdrawn, =
> it was
> > over a year old, far past the official deadline for an SRFI, and he had p=
> ut
> > a lot of work into it.  One good thing=E2=80=8B about our process is that=
>  all that
> > work is preserved, so if anyone decides to make another attempt at this
> > idea, he won't have to start from scratch.
> >
> > John, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the implementation that remains.
> > The document itself is in good shape, right?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >