[R6RS] Enumerations proposal pre-draft
William D Clinger
will at ccs.neu.edu
Tue May 23 15:46:00 EDT 2006
> >> 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
> 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.
> (define-enumeration color
> (black white purple maroon)
Right. My mistake.
More information about the R6RS