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: xxxxxx@freenetproject.org Subject: Re: Reasons for withdrawal Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:49:38 -0600 > BTW, did the concerns you raised earlier get adequately addressed in the > draft at http://sgmiller.org/code/srfi-44.html? "Size versus Length" section is now clear enough, I think. I'd still like to see a section or a note that refers to names which conflicts or confusing with existing srfis and popular implementations. It may be a job of users to look them out, but having mentioned it in this srfi would be a great help for users and implementators. Something like the following. Compatibilities: Some of the names defined in this srfi uses the same or similar name in existing srfis or implementations. Some of them are defined so that they are extension of the existing practice, and some of them have incompatibilities. Extensions to R5RS R5RS doesn't specify the return value of string-set! and vector-set!. This srfi specifies them to return the passed collection. string-ref, vector-ref and list-ref are extended to take an optional argument, absence-thunk. Relation to other SRFIs string= has different interface from string= in srfi-13, which has the following API: (string= string1 string2 [start1 end1 start2 end2]) If the implementation wish to support both srfis, it can dispatch by its argument types. string-copy and string-count are subset of srfi-13's. string-contains? has a similar name to string-contains in srfi-13, but the latter looks for substring match, instead of element-wise match. list= in this srfi takes two lists. list= in srfi-1 takes arbitrary number of lists. Both arguments of make-list in this srfi are optional. Only the last argument of make-list in srfi-1 is optional. alist-copy is an extension of srfi-1's. SRFI-1's alist-copy doesn't specify the behavior when the given argument contains non-pair in the list. This srfi's alist-copy treats the first element specially. [This actually suggests the choice of 'alist-' prefix may not be adequate, since the alist dictionary given in srfi-44 is not really a plain alist. For example, when people see alist?, they might think something like (define (alist? obj) (and (proper-list? pbj) (every pair? obj))) but it's not the case here. It's even obscure whether ordinary alist operations such as assq, assv, assoc can be applicable to this alist dictionary. Maybe 'alist-dict-' prefix would be better]. srfi-1 uses "remove" and "delete" in a consistent way; the functions with "remove" takes a predicate, while the ones with "delete" takes a value to be compared to the element. In this srfi, "remove" and "delete" also have a consistent meaning, but different from srfi-1's. Consequently, there are a few procedures that have confusingly similar names with different signatures. srfi-1 : alist-delete key alist [=] srfi-44: alist-remove alist key srfi-1 : alist-delete! key alist [=] srfi-44: alist-remove! alist key srfi-1 : remove pred list srfi-44: list-remove list value srfi-1 : remove! pred list srfi-44: list-remove! list value srfi-1 : delete value list [=] srfi-44: list-delete list index srfi-1 : delete! value list [=] srfi-44: list-delete! list index Relation to existing implementations Some implementations (e.g. PLT) use absence-thunk to give a default value in ?-ref or ?-get API. Other implementations (e.g. Chicken, STk, Gauche) instead allow an optional value to specify a default value. This srfi takes the thunk approach because ..... [Gauche has extended string-ref, vector-ref and list-ref. Chicken and STk don't have them, but for example they have hash-table-{ref|get} that takes an optional default value, which would conflict if somebody wants to implement a hash table as a dictionary.] [This has persional bias: Gauche has string-size that returns number of bytes the multibyte string occupies] --shiro