Group Email Manager

login signup
Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 17:46 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 19:13 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (29 Oct 2003 20:06 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2003 20:47 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (29 Oct 2003 23:24 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Taylor Campbell (30 Oct 2003 01:53 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 04:42 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (30 Oct 2003 16:52 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 17:11 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (30 Oct 2003 16:33 UTC)
RE: Fundamental design flaws Anton van Straaten (30 Oct 2003 16:52 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 17:19 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 18:13 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 21:18 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:26 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 21:35 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:49 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 21:55 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 22:05 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 22:28 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 22:52 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Alex Shinn (31 Oct 2003 03:04 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (31 Oct 2003 03:20 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Alex Shinn (31 Oct 2003 07:13 UTC)
RE: Fundamental design flaws Anton van Straaten (30 Oct 2003 23:07 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (31 Oct 2003 03:12 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:57 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (30 Oct 2003 20:23 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 20:35 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 17:06 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 17:26 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 18:15 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws bear (30 Oct 2003 18:48 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 19:35 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws bear (30 Oct 2003 19:45 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 20:08 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws bear (30 Oct 2003 20:40 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 20:48 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Tom Lord (30 Oct 2003 20:49 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx (30 Oct 2003 21:02 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws Bradd W. Szonye (30 Oct 2003 21:26 UTC)
Re: Fundamental design flaws scgmille@xxxxxx 29 Oct 2003 20:47 UTC

Show/hide attachments 
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 12:06:42PM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> No, the second list contains the values =?, (a . b), and (c . d). One
> procedure and two pairs. However, because the second list happens to
> match the implementation of a SRFI-44 alist, the generic collection
> function thinks it is one.
>
> Depending on what you're trying to do, that's either a feature or a
> major flaw. Fans of prototype-based OO may like the fact that the system
> correctly detects "value-based" subtypes like this. People who really
> want a (proc, pair, pair) tuple will probably be surprised, though.

Right, the same problem he elaborated on later.  Yes, thats a very real
bug.  But is largely a bug in the reference implementation.  We just
need to make it clear that alist (or alist-dict) is a dictionary
implemented as an association list (but represented probably as an alist
+ something else to keep it type distinct).

	Scott