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
Attachment:
pgpTb12NIH2PN.pgp
Description: PGP signature