On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Anton van Straaten wrote:

> This could make a nice reference implementation.  It's not completely clear
> to me whether you're also suggesting that this should be something that the
> spec requires of implementations, though.  I don't see the need for it in
> implementations that already provide a generic dispatch mechanism - it would
> only add overhead.

I'm advocating a public interface for collection-generic functions.
The generic-dispatch mechanisms you're talking about aren't public.

If the objective is that I can "drop-in" a collection library developed
anywhere, on any scheme system, and have it work with the local SRFI-44
implementation, then we need a specific, published, data format for
collection objects that allows the collection-generic functions to do
efficient dispatch in an obvious way using R5RS semantics.

Right now, vectors (or possibly records) are the highest level of
compatibility that can be targeted by library code.

So, yes, I'm advocating that the spec should require all collections
that are going to work in this "generic collections framework" to
adhere to a specific published data format -- probably as vectors
or records encapsulating all the needed functions.

				Bear