[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Drop enumerations library?

From: AndrevanTonder <andre>
Date: Thu Nov 2 13:04:38 2006

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Michael Sperber wrote:

> AndrevanTonder <andre_at_het.brown.edu> writes:
>
> That would be sufficient if we were just talking single enumeration
> values. But we're talking sets of them, which is really when the
> library comes in. Note that it is designed in such a way that you
> don't need to import it, even when you use the bytes I/O libraries,
> except when you manipulate the sets. If you want to ditch
> enumerations, you need to include a proposal for what to do in that
> case.

As far as I can tell, the only use of enum-sets in the whole of r6rs is via
"file-options". Wouldn't the addition of just

    file-options->list
    list->file-options
    file-options?

offer a very lightweight way of supporting operations on the sets, while
remaining completely compatible with a future enumerations library? I don't
think complements make sense for file options, but they could also be supported
by another procedure if required.

On the other hand, while I have been arguing for leaving enumerations out, I
was wondering why enumerations, given that they are in the report, are not used
for record field name sets, which seems to be a natural application of them.
If they were useful for that, it might provide more of a rationale for having
them. If, on the other hand, they are not useful for record field names, that
would i.m.o. count against them.

Cheers
Andre
Received on Thu Nov 02 2006 - 13:00:52 UTC