Thanks for the question. I'm adding John Cowan, the author of this SRFI, for feedback.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 4:24 PM Peter McGoron <[email protected]> wrote: > The definition of set-comparator and bag-comparator specifically > mentions the lack of ordering of sets and bags: > > > The following comparators are used to compare sets or bags, and allow > sets of sets, bags of sets, etc. > > > > set-comparator > > > > bag-comparator > > > > Note that these comparators do not provide comparison procedures, as > there is no ordering between sets or bags. It is an error to compare > sets or bags with different element comparators. > > Is there a reason for this specific restriction against comparisons? If > an implementation of SRFI-113 requires elements to be ordered, then it > can't implement these comparators in a way to create sets of sets and > other combinations. > > -- Peter McGoron >
