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

Re: consider exclusive index ranges

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 47 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 47 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Aubrey Jaffer wrote:

But why provide non-0-based indexes at all?  The representations for
ranges in both SRFI-47 and SRFI-25 are ad-hoc and un-schemely.

Whatever the needs of non-0-based indexes are, we *have* a
perfectly acceptable array SRFI that is widely implemented.
The only rationales I can see for a non-compatible new SRFI are:
(1) the existing SRFI is fundamentally broken.  (Note "insufficient"
is not enough if it can be compatibly enhanced, which it can.)
(2) to provide backwards compatibility (portability) for people using
some *existing* API, such as in SLIB.  In that case, the goal is to
specify that API, and discussing how indexes should be listed is out
of place.

What I see you doing is:
(3) we can design a better library by just ignoring SRFI 25.  That
may be true, but for that to be relevant it needs to be *fundamentally*
better, not just an incremental improvement.  The new design must make
important new applications possible or non-trivially easier in a way
which would not be possibly by compatibly enhancing SRFI 25.

So which is it?  I disagree with (1) - SRFI 25 is not fundamentally
broken, and can be easily and cleanly enhanced, as I indicated in
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/