Changes between Version 11 and Version 12 of ImmutableDataStructuresWortman


Ignore:
Timestamp:
06/18/13 23:32:25 (4 years ago)
Author:
cowan
Comment:

Removing obsolete comments

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • ImmutableDataStructuresWortman

    v11 v12  
    496496I will be putting together a proposal for mutable deques (aka tconc lists) at some point, no doubt closely based on this proposal and SRFI 1. 
    497497 
    498 Because deques are ordered, I suggest `ideque-length` for compatibility with `length`, `vector-length`, and `string-length`.  Unordered types like sets and maps should have `iset-size` and `imap-size`.  SRFI 113 and HashTablesCowan already adopt this convention. 
    499  
    500498== Comments on isets and imaps == 
    501499 
     
    504502I'm not opposed to the LRU convention, but I'd like to see it justified.  If I'm convinced, I'll adopt it for SRFI 113 too -- again, uniformity is a win.  Currently the spec says nothing and the implementation uses first-addition-wins.  Terminologically, I think it should be "least recently ''added''" rather than "used", or better yet speak of a "most recently added retention policy" rather than a removal policy. 
    505503 
    506 I prefer `difference` and `xor` to `asymmetric-difference` and `symmetric-difference`, on the lines of SRFI 1 and SRFI 113.  Does it really make sense to XOR more or fewer than two sets?  SRFI 113 assumes it does not. 
    507  
    508 I'm puzzled by the MUSTard of the `update` procedure.  Why ''must'' one of the success continuations be called?  What's the matter with just returning, if you decide not to update the set?  Ditto, why ''should'' for the failure continuation?  Finally, in R7RS style MUSTard applies only to the implementation, not to programmer responsibilities, which are generally expressed with "It is an error if" language. 
    509  
    510 I also think that the failure continuation should precede the success continuation, for consistency with HashTablesCowan and SRFI 69. 
    511  
    512 I need more justification on the element-comparison procedures. 
    513  
    514504Take a look at the explicit merger procedures of SRFI 113 for union and intersection. 
    515505