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.
Description: PGP signature