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 11:45:26AM -0800, bear wrote: > > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:48:34AM -0800, bear wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> > >> >I'd like to know what beyond lacking collection specific shortcut > >> >functions is inefficient in the current SRFI. > >> > >> You're joking, right? Without the "shortcut functions" as you call them > >> being more efficient, there is no reason for most of these collections to > >> exist at all. > > > >But they cannot be defined if they don't apply to the general class of > >collections. They need to be defined for those concrete classes or a > >more specific general one (like ordered tree). > > Of course they can be defined for generic collections. You can get > the last element of a list; it's just the worst possible structure > for that operation to be efficient. Similarly, you can get a range > of keys from an unordered alist, or any of the other "shortcut" > operations. But what about a dictionary with no ordering at all?
Description: PGP signature