[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Drop enumerations library?

[AndrevanTonder]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Michael Sperber wrote:

> AndrevanTonder <andre at het.brown.edu> writes:
>
> That would be sufficient if we were just talking single enumeration
> values.  But we're talking sets of them, which is really when the
> library comes in.  Note that it is designed in such a way that you
> don't need to import it, even when you use the bytes I/O libraries,
> except when you manipulate the sets.  If you want to ditch
> enumerations, you need to include a proposal for what to do in that
> case.

As far as I can tell, the only use of enum-sets in the whole of r6rs is via 
"file-options".  Wouldn't the addition of just

    file-options->list
    list->file-options
    file-options?

offer a very lightweight way of supporting operations on the sets, while 
remaining completely compatible with a future enumerations library?  I don't 
think complements make sense for file options, but they could also be supported 
by another procedure if required.

On the other hand, while I have been arguing for leaving enumerations out, I 
was wondering why enumerations, given that they are in the report, are not used 
for record field name sets, which seems to be a natural application of them. 
If they were useful for that, it might provide more of a rationale for having 
them.  If, on the other hand, they are not useful for record field names, that 
would i.m.o. count against them.

Cheers
Andre