[R6RS] Enumerations proposal pre-draft

Michael Sperber sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
Wed May 24 02:27:50 EDT 2006

William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> 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.

Then, I think, the examples are wrong:

  ((enum-set-constructor (make-enumeration '(black white red green)))
   'black 'white))

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

Fine with me.  Let's go with it.

Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

More information about the R6RS mailing list