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

Re: Reasons for withdrawal



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