This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 44 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 44 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Please read olegs initial post on folding versus iteration. There are > very very good reasons to not take that approach. Yes, I agree. Note that a generic programming interface *may* need cursors; I don't have enough experience in that area to say for sure. But I think you can safely leave that for a later SRFI. >> Finally there's considerations of efficiency: Additional predicates >> tell which general classes of operations are constant, sublinear, or >> linear. > These fall under the category of 'not within the scope of this SRFI'. > These would fall into the same hypothetical SRFI as Bradd's dynamic > programming extensions. Agreed. > As with most of Scheme, efficiency concerns are largely an > implementation detail. Whoah, NOT agreed. This is that "academics, not engineering" attitude again, except that efficiency concerns are important even to academics. This is important stuff, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped sweeping things like efficiency and usability under the rug. Leaving it for later is OK, but pretending that they're just "implementation details" is not. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd