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

Re: Fundamental design flaws

To: srfi-44@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Fundamental design flaws
From: "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+srfi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:26:17 -0800
Delivered-to: srfi-44@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20031030210222.GA3342@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: srfi-44@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <DCE9B6E9-0A7B-11D8-8E6E-000A95CCCEE4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <200310301645.IAA01323@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20031030170642.GB30088@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200310302102.NAA02286@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20031030210222.GA3342@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

> Tom Lord wrote:
>> But since 44 gives no way to create a real set, a conforming
>> implementation can use implementations that just call error.

scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Just because SRFI-44 doesn't specify a set, and doesn't specify
> extensibility doesn't mean that a set cannot be created.

Sorry, but that's *exactly* what it means. With no specification and no
extension mechanism, you cannot make one. That's why we keep telling you
that those things are essential.
-- 
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

References:
- Re: Fundamental design flaws
  - From: Taylor Campbell
- Re: Fundamental design flaws
  - From: Tom Lord
- Re: Fundamental design flaws
  - From: scgmille
- Re: Fundamental design flaws
  - From: Tom Lord
- Re: Fundamental design flaws
  - From: scgmille

Prev by Date: Re: Fundamental design flaws
Next by Date: [oleg@xxxxxxxxx: Static, dynamic dispatch and OO system]
Previous by thread: Re: Fundamental design flaws
Next by thread: Remove -> Delete proposal?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread