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 07:42:56AM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote: > scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>> In the short term, yes, it may allow for drop in collections, but > >>> should a real generic dispatch standard come about, it would not > >>> only invalidate the mechanism you're describing, but the rest of > >>> SRFI-44 as well since they would be specified in the same place. > > Bradd wrote: > >> Why would it invalidate the whole thing? If a better solution becomes > >> apparent in the future, then release a new SRFI that describes the > >> delta from the old crusty implementation. > > > Why build in obsolecence? > > Why assume that it will become obsolete? If it does, a new SRFI can > specify how to upgrade. In the meantime, collection library implementors > have a portable extension mechanism that they can actually use. Because it will. Scheme systems right now have dispatch mechanisms. Thats a fact. It makes much more sense for this SRFI to integrate with those. But we can't do that without a portable, pervasive dispatch system. I suspect this will be standardized eventually, and when it does, collections should integrate with it. Specifying a dispatch mechanism with this SRFI means that this SRFI has a limited lifetime before it has to be patched or abandonned. Scott
Description: PGP signature