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

Re: Reasons for withdrawal



> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> 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.

scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I agree, but to specify it in this SRFI fundamentally limits the
> implementation strategies.

But leaving it unspecified also limits implementation strategies for
collection authors, just in a different way. Every collection author
will still need to deal with the fundamental limits imposed by the local
SRFI-44 implementation, with the added disadvantage that he can't count
on it being portable to other implementations.

> Deciding hastily on a mechanism now does a disservice to the
> tremendous amount of effort and thought that a generic dispatch or OO
> SRFI deserves ....

Which is why we recommended taking your time. Don't do it hastily.
-- 
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd