You create an array with (array ...) but it mostly acts like a list.
I've often wanted anonymous rb-trees.
Often, I'd like to have a list of "objects", but want to access the data in them with the same syntax as with rb trees. It is nice that we now have anonymous objects; can we have anonymous rb-trees?
Also, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the way that contexts and rb-trees are crumpled together. They seem like unique and independant contexts.
Lutz, would it be possible to separate them out? When I use rb trees, I don't usually need the other stuff that a context implies. Not saying there is any overhead speedwise. It is just grappling with it in my head.
A lot of times I deal with data where I need to stash it in rows, and there is a lot of self-similarity, but there is also odd data that pops in which I also want to stuff into the data structure and save.
How about (rbtree ...) ?
This would fit in with the default functor; right now there is no way to access the "default functor" other than with (define), but with an rbtree, the default function could be used without generating a context.
Ted