Enum comparisons and value-lookup
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(19 Sep 2020 16:35 UTC)
|
Re: Enum comparisons and value-lookup
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(19 Sep 2020 17:34 UTC)
|
Re: Enum comparisons and value-lookup
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(19 Sep 2020 17:55 UTC)
|
Re: Enum comparisons and value-lookup
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(19 Sep 2020 17:59 UTC)
|
Re: Enum comparisons and value-lookup Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (19 Sep 2020 18:00 UTC)
|
Re: Enum comparisons and value-lookup
John Cowan
(19 Sep 2020 22:12 UTC)
|
Re: Enum comparisons and value-lookup
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(20 Sep 2020 02:46 UTC)
|
Re: Enum comparisons and value-lookup
John Cowan
(20 Sep 2020 02:51 UTC)
|
Re: Enum comparisons and value-lookup Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 19 Sep 2020 18:00 UTC
On 2020-09-19 13:55 -0400, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote: > On 2020-09-19 19:33 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > > Am Sa., 19. Sept. 2020 um 18:35 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe > > <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>: > > > > > I think that the enum=?, enum<?, etc. forms should all require at > > > least two enum arguments, unless there's some strong reason for > > > keeping the zero- and one-argument cases. > > > > Keeping the one-argument case for <? makes sense for "compatibility" > > to the SRFI 1 lset interface. > > That makes sense to me. I see that SRFI 113 also keeps the > one-argument case. However: Here we are talking about comparing enums, not enum-sets. It may make sense to follow SRFI 1 for set-comparisons, but, as a general pattern, one-argument comparisons are silly. (R*RS string<?, etc. require at least two arguments, e.g.) So I'm thinking that I still prefer (enum=? enum1 enum2 enum3 ...) and the like. -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> "It is better to forget time altogether. Time plays no role at the fundamental level of physics." --Carlo Rovelli