On 2020-07-31 20:01 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> Indeed, the solution is a composed indexer. I don't think it's that
> bad as the algorithmic complexity wouldn't change. And as soon as we
> have composed indexers, many more things become possible like
> range-map.

OK. If John concurs, we can remove the constraint on indexers and
cherry-pick the earlier composed-indexer version of the sample
implementation.

> P.S.: It is possibly a good idea to allow abstract entities for
> indexers and not only procedures. The problem is that procedures
> (which are actually closures) cannot be introspected. This way, the
> complexity can only increase when indexers are composed and the
> implementation can never simplify indexers. To cure this, you have to
> allow that range-indexer returns opaque values.

This is an interesting idea, and would, I think, require very few
changes to the sample implementation.  John?

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"If work is to become play, then tools must become toys."
--Lee Felsenstein