"Richard A. O'Keefe" wrote:
> 
>         Yes. It is good for solving your problem, but...
> 
> Yes, it is the *standard* lexicographic order.

I have to admit: I haven't associated that with your description, but now
it's clear (of course).

> 
>         >     It seems to be useful in Python and Prolog.
> 
>         ... spontaneously I think of one other definition of #< here:
>         You could interpret these colls as vectors and define #< as comparing their
>         lengths (in Euclidean space...).
> 
> Once upon a time I did a great deal of statistics and physics.
> For the life of me I can't think of any occasion when this would be
> useful, with the exception of some kind of search problem, in which
> case I'd be comparing "relative error", not "length".  And the relative
> error does not depend on the vector alone.

My point here was if there is a common sense about what means #< regarding
SequenceableCollections. If not it could lead to confusion to define it.

But defined as standard lexicographic ordering *and* stated this in the
comment is OK for me.


Greetings,

Stephan


PS: I just stumbled over the meaning of the term SequenceableCollection: a
Set is *not* such a one, but it is enumerable by #do:. And each
SequenceableCollection seems to be ordered (not only an OrderedCollection!),
which is needed by your definition of #<... So after looking in the class
hierarchy I have deleted another - wrong - complaint of mine.
-- 
Stephan Rudlof (sr at evolgo.de)
   "Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis.
    You can't simply say, 'Today I will be brilliant.'"
    -- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3