[R6RS] Enumerations proposal pre-draft

[William D Clinger]

Mike wrote:
> >> I would think that <constructor-syntax> will be much more common.
> >> Given that there's `enum-set-constructor', I don't think <constructor>
> >> is needed in the syntax form.  Given that it's not expected to be the
> >> common form, I think a list of symbols would be more appropriate.
> >
> > Okay.
> 
> ... but then you went the other way.  Is there a rationale?

No, I didn't.  The <constructor> procedure takes a list of
symbols, and the <constructor-syntax> takes a bunch of unquoted
symbols.

> Also, is there a rationale why you prefer curried versions of the
> various procedures?  (My rationale for preferring the non-curried
> versions was that they match what I expect to be common
> usage---including basically all of your examples.)

The curried procedures encourage a phase separation that should
make them blazingly fast in practice.  Uncurried versions would
not be as fast.

I'm working on a reference implementation.  You'll see.

> That's
> 
> (define-enumeration color
>   (black white purple maroon)
>   color-set)
> 
> right?

Right.  My mistake.

Will