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.
t 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 >mail. > >SRFI-44 compatibility: > 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 one. >-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. Bear