[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] SYMBOL<? is not a total order consistent with EQ?
|
From: |
Taylor R Campbell |
|
Subject: |
Re: [MIT-Scheme-devel] SYMBOL<? is not a total order consistent with EQ? |
|
Date: |
Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:01:15 +0000 |
|
User-agent: |
IMAIL/1.21; Edwin/3.116; MIT-Scheme/9.1 |
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 18:35:44 +0000
From: Taylor R Campbell <address@hidden>
This makes cref confused when it tries to handle macro-generated names
of top-level definitions. What to do? Say all interned symbols
precede all uninterned symbols, or break name ties by putting interned
symbols first, perhaps?
Of course, that doesn't help to break ties between uninterned symbols,
in light of which I think SYMBOL<? should reject uninterned symbols
altogether. The system needs another way to deal with the cref issue,
but some other day...