On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> writes:

> tl;dr: Let's remove the bounds argument, specify the
> full range of fixnums (including negative), and also
> include a seed argument.

I'm pondering on whether allowing negative return values from hash
functions would realistically break backwards compatibility or cause
other issues.

As I said before, I'm not interested in backwards compatibility.

This is outside of the core language, and so far everything being

discussed can be trivially cross-implemented (i.e. you can write

simple wrappers between SRFI 69, R6RS, SRFI 125, SRFI 126

(minus weak keys and reader syntax), with or without the

suggestions for bounds/seed arguments).

So if you really want backwards compatibility, put a rubber stamp

on R6RS hashtables and be done. It's a useful, existing standard,

and unlike SRFI 69 isn't broken. Make it part of R7RS large.

In the meantime, I will hold out for something better.

Alex