[racket-dev] Generics updates

From: Vincent St-Amour (stamourv at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Sat Aug 3 17:46:40 EDT 2013

At Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:33:02 -0400,
Carl Eastlund wrote:
> [1  <text/plain; UTF-8 (7bit)>]
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Stephen Chang <stchang at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> > > With that in mind, I think it would make sense to move `set-first' and
> > > `set-empty?' to the primitive set (making it clear that they are
> > > optional, and can be derived from `set->stream' if need be). With those
> > > two in the primitive set, anything that implements all the primitives
> > > should get all the derived for free, right?
> >
> > Oh yeah, I like that better than moving set->stream to primitives
> > since they are more "standard" set operations.
> >
> So the proposal for "primitive" methods is to pick one canonical set of
> methods from which all the others can be derived?  I'm fairly sure there's
> more than one such set, and I'm not sure there's one choice that's clearly
> better than the others.
> I can understand the benefits of documenting a
> "suggested" set, but given that it is an arbitrary and pragmatic
> distinction, I'm not sure I'd want to set them off in a section any more.
> I'd just make a list in the gen:set description or something.

Sounds good to me. As long as there's a clear easy starting point for
someone implementing a new set type, I think we're good.


Posted on the dev mailing list.