On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 07:26:17PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote: > > > Um.... given those specifications, which appear to be effectively > > > identical, why would a client of this (meta-)interface ever use one of > > > these procedures in preference to the other? Therefore why does the > > > interface need both? > > > Because code may be written initially that accepts an ordered=20 > > collection or sequence, and may wish to pass an unordered bag in the=20 > > future. This allows that to occur without error. Thank you for the=20 > > constructive discussion. > > > Well, gosh. It doesn't seem to me like a minor point. It doesn't > seem like a problem that is really fixed by a quick tweak. It seems > to me to point to some deep conceptual errors in the whole framework > of 44. > Hmm? I just pointed out how its very much by design to have those functions behave how they do. Scott
Attachment:
pgp8D479RU386.pgp
Description: PGP signature