[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Reasons for withdrawal

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 Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 12:03:09PM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> A programmer cannot implement a new collection type without knowing
> >> the details of the dispatch method ....
> scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > I agree.  Thats why this is mentioned in the issues.  But thats a
> > 'solve once' problem for the implementer.
> It's a "must be solved" problem for everyone who implements the core of
> SRFI-44 *and* for everyone who wants to add a new collection to the
> system.

Yes, but its not that hard.  They can integrate with Tiny-CLOS if the 
SRFI-44 implementation they're using isn't using a more native feature 
of the Scheme system, or that system otherwise.  Adding the collection 
to whatever dispatch mechanism is being used is pretty trivial compared 
to actually implementing the collection.

> >> Between R5RS, SRFI-1, SRFI-13, and a little glue code, a programmer
> >> can actually do *better* than he can with SRFI-44.
> > Yes, but not for future collections.
> SRFI-44 doesn't let him do better for future collections, because it
> doesn't specify how to add new collections to the existing set.

And it can't until a dispatch mechanism is standardized and everywhere, 
but its not as bad as you make it sound.


Attachment: pgpX8JWRZkw68.pgp
Description: PGP signature