This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 69 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 69 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Scott G. Miller wrote: >On 4/26/05, bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Scott G. Miller wrote: >> >> >compatible with SRFI-44, whose purpose is to unify datastructures so >> >that they can be used generically and consistently in programs. >> >> I think srfi-44 fails to do that. It doesn't provide >> any infrastructure with a way for collection code to >> "register" itself so as to be usable via generic functions, >> so there is absolutely no "pluggable interface" in a code >> sense. > >Thats an implementation concern. The "generic and consistent" refers to >the experience of the programmer, not the implementor. Without a usable interface and a way for collections to give it callbacks so that they can be used through its generic functions, there is *NO* experience for the programmer, nor the implementor either. srfi-44 is dead; it is so underspecified that there is nothing that "using" it even means. It is of no concern at all in implementing real collection implementations, because it provides no portable interface and cannot be implemented as a portable library. Nothing that depends on it (or "uses" it, if such it may be termed) can be portable. Therefore it is best to ignore it completely for purposes of srfi-69, or any srfi which intends to provide a usable (ie, portable) library. Bear