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

Re: Reasons for withdrawal

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 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