[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Responses to your comments
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
>Hello, I was on a holiday and found my SRFI added with many comments
>when I came back. I'll try to address your various points in this mail.
>I'll post something about the more controversial ones in a separate
> I looked at the applicable parts of SRFI-44 (map API) and didn't
> like it. However, if an implementation should want to give a
> SRFI-44 interface to SRFI-69 hash tables, it is easy enough to
> do so. The way of doing so is sufficiently defined in SRFI-44,
> so I won't bother with that.
This is laughable btw; the reason it was an absurd request
in the first place is precisely because srfi-44 leaves this
very thing (how to add methods to its overloaded functions)
unspecified. There is no such thing as a portable interface
to SRFI-44, so you were quite right to ignore the request for
>-size vs. -count:
> I associate hash-table-size with the actual size of the hash
> table, so I thought -count would be more intuitive. However, it
> seems -size is more consistent with the rest of the world. So I
> changed it.
I think I agree with you; it's sensible to me to talk
about a hash table of size 2048, containing 999 elements.