<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Carl Eastlund wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">Here's what I propose to do now:<br><br></div>- rename set? to generic-set?; this predicate recognizes the new all-inclusive generic set type<br></div><div>- rename set-immutable? to set?; this predicate recognizes the pre-existing immutable hash set type<br></div><div>- leave set-mutable? and set-weak? alone; they recognize the other two hash set types (on the mutability axis)<br></div><div>- allow multiple-set operations to combine equal-based hash sets and lists, since both use equal? for equality<br></div></span></blockquote></div><br><div><br></div><div>Sounds like the right direction to me. -- Matthias</div><div><br></div></body></html>