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.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 09:03:29PM -0700, bear wrote: > As for [my dictionary interface] having "too many functions," you know > how it got that way? It got that way when I used the tree and alist > and hash-table libraries I had already built to construct real working > projects .... This is for convenience of actual use according to the > patterns of use that were developing in real projects. This is how > libraries that are easy and convenient to use get built. That's exactly why I think it would be better to implement the concrete collection types first, use them in actual code, and then factor out the resulting interfaces for a "naming standards" SRFI. (Assuming that such a proposal is appropriate for a SRFI at all; it may not be.) > I don't think your design adequately covers the real-world gaps and > problems that people using this stuff are going to run into. That's my feeling too. Thanks for saying it with much less hostility than I could manage, though! -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd