xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
>>> This is flat wrong.  It allows one to consistently interchange
>>> values between the standard Scheme types ....

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Last I checked, R5RS already provides that. You have heard of
>> vector->list et al, right?

> Yes, but you cannot do it generically.  I cannot use collection->list
> to convert any of the compound structures to lists, or use enumeration
> to convert any compound structure to any other.

If the only collections available are the R5RS primitives, it's trivial
to write collection->list. A programmer will need a more sophisticated
dispatch method if you extend the set of collections, but SRFI-44 does
not define that dispatch method.

A programmer cannot implement a new collection type without knowing the
details of the dispatch method. For example, suppose that I regularly
use PLT and Scsh, and they both provide SRFI-44. I write a grab-bag
collection and try to fit it into PLT's SRFI-44 framework. To do so, I
need to know how PLT implemented the generic dispatcher, so that I can
make it aware of my grab-bag. If I also want to implement grab-bag for
Scsh, I need to figure out how *they* implemented the dispatcher. Of
course, they aren't compatible, so I need to re-write half of my code.

>> Really? Lists and alists already use a common enumerator. It's
>> called "map." If you really need to deal with vectors and strings
>> too, it's trivial to roll your own enumerator. Your enumerator
>> doesn't even provide the multiple-collection capabilities of map and
>> SRFI-1 fold -- it's actually less capable than existing facilities.

> SRFI-1 fold applies only to lists.  But thanks for admiting that
> enumeration over vectors and strings would be useful.

Yes, it is useful. But you're still missing the point. Between R5RS,
SRFI-1, SRFI-13, and a little glue code, a programmer can actually do
*better* than he can with SRFI-44.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd