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

Re: Reasons for withdrawal

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 08:24:59AM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> 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.
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> This is why experimentation and implementation experience are useful.
> >> It lets you know whether an abstract design is really workable, or if
> >> it's just another unimplementable abstract design.
> > This is why I didn't rule out the idea of a generic interface to 
> > collection extension.  It just doesn't belong in this SRFI.
> It seems to me (and to a few other reviewers) that you're building a
> house on a non-existent foundation. SRFI-44 is allegedly designed with
> extensibility in mind, but it doesn't actually specify how to extend it.
> Therefore, each implementor must come up with his own solution, which
> will become obsolete when (if?) somebody actually publishes the portable
> extension SRFI.

There's a giant difference between obsolecence of a proprietary function 
in Scheme systems and obsoleting an agreed upon standard.

Attachment: pgpDhhE86V0DK.pgp
Description: PGP signature