Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(26 Sep 2015 17:29 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(29 Sep 2015 02:43 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(29 Sep 2015 09:17 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(29 Sep 2015 11:00 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(30 Sep 2015 03:16 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 09:37 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(30 Sep 2015 14:02 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 20:44 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far? taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (01 Oct 2015 08:36 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(29 Sep 2015 11:36 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(01 Oct 2015 12:53 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(30 Sep 2015 03:32 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 08:56 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(30 Sep 2015 09:38 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 09:46 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 10:03 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Evan Hanson
(30 Sep 2015 11:54 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(30 Sep 2015 22:34 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Per Bothner
(29 Sep 2015 11:14 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
John Cowan
(29 Sep 2015 12:07 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Per Bothner
(29 Sep 2015 12:47 UTC)
|
Re: Community preference so far?
Alex Shinn
(30 Sep 2015 09:15 UTC)
|
xxxxxx@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes: > - I will specify that the hash function passed to make-hashtable *may* > be passed a second bound argument, and the hash functions will take > optional bound arguments. > > This covers the gigantic tables use-case. > > I'm not entirely happy about the last one, but can't think of a better > solution. The other two I'm fairly happy about, because they're very > non-intrusive changes and cleanly solve our problems. I decided to slightly break R6RS compatibility there, since it's for very rare cases anyway: as long as the built-in foo-hash are extended alongside make-hashtable, code like (make-hashtable string-hash ...) keeps working as is; the only thing affected are custom hash functions, which are probably a pretty rare use-case, and they only need to accept one more argument and may just ignore it. That avoids the weird "may pass a second argument" semantics. Taylan