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.
> 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