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
Attachment:
pgpG610HmdC3m.pgp
Description: PGP signature