[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 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