[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 02:45:24PM -0600, scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
And what about the library writer who wants to target more than one
SRFI-44 implementation? That's a "must be solved once per SRFI-44
implementation" problem. SRFI-44 as (under)specified requires a lot of
porting to get code from one implementation to another, and it provides
no guidance for how to do that.
Bradd W. Szonye