Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(28 Oct 2003 20:35 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Tom Lord
(28 Oct 2003 21:24 UTC)
|
RE: Reasons for withdrawal
Anton van Straaten
(28 Oct 2003 22:05 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(28 Oct 2003 22:36 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(28 Oct 2003 22:44 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(28 Oct 2003 23:22 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Tom Lord
(29 Oct 2003 02:50 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 03:19 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Tom Lord
(29 Oct 2003 03:31 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 03:38 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(29 Oct 2003 04:36 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 05:02 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(29 Oct 2003 05:32 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Taylor Campbell
(28 Oct 2003 22:56 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Taylor Campbell
(28 Oct 2003 23:06 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(28 Oct 2003 23:16 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(28 Oct 2003 23:28 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(28 Oct 2003 23:42 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 00:13 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(29 Oct 2003 01:00 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 01:41 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Tom Lord
(29 Oct 2003 03:03 UTC)
|
RE: Reasons for withdrawal
Anton van Straaten
(29 Oct 2003 05:31 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(29 Oct 2003 05:54 UTC)
|
RE: Reasons for withdrawal
Anton van Straaten
(29 Oct 2003 06:40 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(29 Oct 2003 06:44 UTC)
|
RE: Reasons for withdrawal
Anton van Straaten
(29 Oct 2003 07:31 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(29 Oct 2003 07:34 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Thien-Thi Nguyen
(29 Oct 2003 14:08 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(28 Oct 2003 21:28 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(28 Oct 2003 22:02 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(28 Oct 2003 22:22 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Jim White
(28 Oct 2003 22:15 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Shiro Kawai
(29 Oct 2003 01:25 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 01:44 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(29 Oct 2003 04:10 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 04:53 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(29 Oct 2003 05:10 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 05:17 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Bradd W. Szonye
(29 Oct 2003 05:31 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 01:49 UTC)
|
API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal)
Shiro Kawai
(29 Oct 2003 05:48 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
Shiro Kawai
(29 Oct 2003 06:03 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 17:40 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal)
Bradd W. Szonye
(29 Oct 2003 06:03 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal)
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 14:19 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
Shiro Kawai
(29 Oct 2003 22:25 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 22:41 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
Taylor Campbell
(29 Oct 2003 23:58 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal)
Taylor Campbell
(29 Oct 2003 21:40 UTC)
|
A possible solution?
bear
(29 Oct 2003 22:59 UTC)
|
RE: A possible solution?
Anton van Straaten
(30 Oct 2003 07:40 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
Bradd W. Szonye
(30 Oct 2003 10:07 UTC)
|
RE: A possible solution?
bear
(30 Oct 2003 15:13 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 15:20 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
Bradd W. Szonye
(30 Oct 2003 15:27 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 15:39 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
Bradd W. Szonye
(30 Oct 2003 15:43 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 16:11 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
bear
(30 Oct 2003 17:02 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
Tom Lord
(30 Oct 2003 19:58 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 20:15 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
bear
(30 Oct 2003 20:53 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 21:07 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
Taylor Campbell
(30 Oct 2003 21:08 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
Bradd W. Szonye
(30 Oct 2003 21:11 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 21:17 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
bear
(30 Oct 2003 23:11 UTC)
|
Re: A possible solution?
Alex Shinn
(31 Oct 2003 03:03 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts Shiro Kawai (29 Oct 2003 23:19 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 00:26 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
Bradd W. Szonye
(30 Oct 2003 05:32 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
bear
(30 Oct 2003 06:22 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
Bradd W. Szonye
(30 Oct 2003 06:23 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 13:54 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
Bradd W. Szonye
(30 Oct 2003 14:01 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 14:16 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
Bradd W. Szonye
(30 Oct 2003 14:29 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 14:58 UTC)
|
Re: API conflicts
Bradd W. Szonye
(30 Oct 2003 15:22 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Tom Lord
(29 Oct 2003 01:50 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Alex Shinn
(29 Oct 2003 03:06 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 03:18 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Tom Lord
(29 Oct 2003 03:29 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 03:37 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Alex Shinn
(29 Oct 2003 06:16 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(29 Oct 2003 14:25 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Alex Shinn
(30 Oct 2003 02:19 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
scgmille@xxxxxx
(30 Oct 2003 04:42 UTC)
|
Re: Reasons for withdrawal
Alex Shinn
(30 Oct 2003 06:22 UTC)
|
>From: Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@evdev.ath.cx> Subject: Re: API conflicts (Was: Re: Reasons for withdrawal) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:39:54 -0500 > LIST= should be n-ary. I'm not sure why it isn't. (probably a typo; > there are lots of those in the document, due to the tedium in writing > it) See my mail <20031028.200305.229729887xxxxxx@lava.net> > A couple of problems with alists have been mentioned. Three solutions > came up on IRC: > - Create an abstract type for alists. [...] > - Add a unique token to the head of the alist. [...] > - Add a metadata _association_ to the list, with a unique token > visible only to the implementation. [...] The fundamental problem I see is that what Scheme/Lisp programmer thinks as "alist" is just a list of pairs and nothing more, no hidden structure, no magic tags; it doesn't fit well in the view of "dictionary" in srfi-44. For example, one of alist's nice properties is that you can add the pair to the head of existing alist non-destructively, effectively shadowing entries with the same key. The power of alist is in its simple and flexible structure. The alist dictionary is just one of special application of alist, and not all alists fit that view. So I suggest we define an abstract type for alist-dictionary, which happens to use alist to store data internally, but alist-dictionary itself is a different object, maybe implemented by srfi-9 record type. > It's pretty easy to avoid this conflict by either not explicitly using > SRFI 44 or explicitly using those implementations' libraries, or > having a simple SRFI 44 wrapper around hash tables of those > implementations when you do explicitly use SRFI 44. The primary point of the section is to warn users, so that they can take the strategy like you described here. There's another point, though. There are two camps in Scheme implementations regarding how to give the "fallback" value, both have their own ground. If srfi-44 gives a convincing rationale for thunk approach, and becomes widely spread, it may be possible that eventually the convention of giving fallback value converges to thunk approach. --shiro