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.
Bear wrote: >> It argues for the implementation of those operations *EVEN ON >> DICTIONARIES WHERE THEY'RE NOT PARTICULARLY EFFICIENT*. That was, in >> fact, my whole point. Only if the operations exist on all >> dictionaries will they be used in "generic" code. Only if they are >> used in "generic" code will the benefits, where available, be >> realized in general systems. scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I see your point entirely. My main argument is against operations > that don't make any sense for some collections. For ones which do > generalize but are implementable in terms of the more basic > operations, there is little point *except* efficiency. That's not a "little" point. > In that case, the operators should be defined over a superset of > collections where they're both defined and can be implemented more > efficiently. Which ties users to implementation details of the containers they use, even when that isn't necessary. You make a big deal about constraining collection implementors to specific implementations, but you don't think it's a big deal to do it to collection users? > For the general classes of SRFI, neither point holds. That's because you are, in fact, missing the point. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd