Re: Fundamental design flaws

["Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+srfi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> You make a big deal about how important it is to provide generic
>> procedures for collections, but you don't support a very common
>> collection type? Code that uses alists must choose between a complete
>> port or no support? 

Anton van Straaten wrote:
> An adapter could be implemented, with type (alist -> collection).

Sure, it could be. In fact, I suspect that the new reference
implementation includes something like it, perhaps

    (apply make-alist-dict elt= alist)

Given the recent discussion, it sounds like SRFI-44 should not actually
have "list" and "vector" interfaces; instead, they should be
"list-flexible-sequence" and "vector-sequence." As written, they're
either incompatible with the author's design goals (don't use primitive
Scheme collections as collections) or with R5RS list/vector functions.

I'm tired of these surprises, and I'm tired of being accused of
insulting the author, insulting all Scheme implementors, being
"too dramatic," etc. Yes, I am confrontational, but my goal was
certainly not to insult anyone. It's tough not too, however, when the
author keeps claiming that we're attacking him personally.
-- 
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd