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