> 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. Carl, I dont see how guaranteeing some fallback implementations affects allowing more efficient versions. I think most programmers understand that the default implementation is probably not very efficient. > > Vincent _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
