It is "do not" and not "must not" or "shall not", so I interpret it that the user can't rely on them to have comparisons, but the implementation can provide those comparators with comparison procedures if it wishes.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 1:27 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >
