Am Mi., 16. Nov. 2022 um 13:04 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
>
> > - make-product-comparator and make-sum-comparator are defined to take
> > zero or more comparators.  It'd be better that the behavior when no
> > comparators are explicitly stated.  Or we may define them to take at
> > least one argument.
> +1

There is no reason to restrict to >= 1 comparator.  It would be an
arbitrary restriction.

> > - I'm implementing srfi-228 for Gauche from the srfi text and find the
> > description of above two procedures a bit confusing, because the
> > elements of comparators (type test, equality, ordering and hashing)
> > are all written in one paragraph.  How about itemize each element?
> +1
>
> The names make-product-comparator and make-sum-comparator are quite
> long. Could the "make-" prefix be dropped?

I think Daphne's names are consistent with R7RS and the other relevant SRFIs.

> The terms "sum" and "product" are obtuse. I assume they refer to math
> (category theory?), as in sum and product types. Are there everyday
> words that would say something close enough? The description is also
> hard to understand.

Instead of "product", "intersection" looks like a good choice because
this is what happens with the type governed by this comparator.

Then, one could replace "sum" with "union".

> Anyway, the ability to compose comparators is a good one.

I know that I would have to blame myself as well, but it is funny how
often "last calls" elicit first comments by people!