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


This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 13 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 13 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

In a message dated 5/7/00 3:54:06 PM Central Daylight Time, 
d96-mst-ingen-reklam@xxxxxxxx writes:

> But my opinion is that the SRFI should not mention ANY algorithm, it
>  should leave it up to implementors. A SRFI is a specification, not an
>  implementation, isn't it?

I think I disagree with this part. So far, a SRFI is a specification, 
INCLUDING a _reference implementation_. While I agree that the specification, 
per se, should not require a specific algorithm, the reference implementation 
MUST--in my opinion. (My impression was that Olin agreed to remove the 
reference to KMP in the body of the specification.) In particular, any SRFI 
which claims to be implementable under a R5RS-compliant implementation should 
be complete--and runnable under such an implementation. In the case of this 
strings SRFI, that means it must include some algorithm like KMP.

With "library SRFIs" such as Olin's list and string SRFIs, I would be very 
disappointed if the SRFI (at least the reference implementation) "left things 
out" which would prevent me from using the SRFI as is in the two Schemes I 

Jim Bender