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 Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:25:48AM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote: > > Bradd W. Szonye wrote: > >> Why not specify the interface for [declaring subtypes], and leave it > >> up to the SRFI-44 core implementor to provide the hooking-up code? > >> Would that constrain implementations too much? > > scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > It may be impossible to specify all the hooking up code. In > > particular defining the type or class and binding the representation > > to it is going to be very difficult. You may not be able to pass any > > value or function to the 'define-type' interface that makes any sense. > > This makes me wonder: If you can't specify the hooking up code in the > SRFI, then how are implementors supposed to do any better? Either it can > be done, or it can't. If it can't be done, well, that's another major > issue. The issue isn't whether its possible to connect a collection to some dispatch system, but whether its possible to define an interface as a frontend to any dispatch system. Its the latter that may not be possible. Scott
Description: PGP signature