Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit:

> I just don't see much of an improvement in changing hash function
> signatures to something entirely novel, when '(obj, [bound]) -> int'
> works perfectly fine and is familiar for programmers and more compatible
> with existing implementations.

Even this is problematic, though.  For example, the Larceny implementation
of SRFI 125 (and R6RS and SRFI 69) does not pass a "bound" argument to a
hash function.  If one is written to demand such an argument, it will break.
This is what I mean about a fixed protocol.  If (I say again) the framework
were able to ask the hash function what arguments it accepts, no problems
with "bound" or "salt" arguments would arise.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
Using RELAX NG compact syntax to develop schemas is one of the simple
pleasures in life....          --Jeni Tennison