This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 13 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 13 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
>>>>> "Olin" == Olin Shivers <shivers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Olin> Languages should be small. Libraries should be large. Yeah, well, we know this is your opinion. It's not fact. I'm not asking you to abandon functionality. I'm asking you to divide functionality into smaller parts. You keep refusing to address this issue. I really like what's in SRFI 13. But it's too much for a single library. Olin> It is not hard to handle this library -- This is just plain wrong. It *is* (would be ...) hard to handle this library, because, in realistic application code, I'll want to use it alongside two dozen other libraries. Moreover, I'll realistically only use 10% of the strings library, yet---in finding out about what the library does and reading the docs---there's conceptual overhead. If anything, *implementation* size is totally irrelevant. The *docs* are 1000 lines. I'll be much more likely to use a string library with a much smaller, but better-defined focus, and if nobody else does, I'll eventually submit a SRFI to that end. I'm not mainly a designer, I'm a potential user. Look at the discussion archive---I'm not the only one who feels that way. Olin> Subtle algorithms requiring careful reasoning. Which makes them Olin> prime candidates for being packaged up once & for all. And the complexity of the discussion should convince you that SRFI 13 is not succeeding at the "once & for all" part. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla