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.
> From: scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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 o= > ne 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=3D20 > > > collection or sequence, and may wish to pass an unordered bag in th= > > > future. This allows that to occur without error. Thank you for th= > > > 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=20 > functions behave how they do. =20 You have an interface spec that gives two names to one specification. Hello?!?! Anybody home? Sorry, but, if you're writing a standards document, you can't just count on people to "get the [non-explicit] idea". -t