Re: SRFI 125 draft 8 comments Sudarshan S Chawathe 07 May 2016 21:38 UTC

Quick follow-up to on item in my own message of a few minutes ago...

>   * hash-table-pop!: The sample implementation expects an additional
>     (failure) argument.  Also, shouldn't there be a performance
>     guarantee here similar to those in earlier procedures?

On second thought, I can see a good reason to not have any guarantee, so
ignore that part of the comment.