On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:25:48AM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> Why not specify the interface for [declaring subtypes], and leave it
> >> up to the SRFI-44 core implementor to provide the hooking-up code?
> >> Would that constrain implementations too much?
>
> xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
> > It may be impossible to specify all the hooking up code.  In
> > particular defining the type or class and binding the representation
> > to it is going to be very difficult.  You may not be able to pass any
> > value or function to the 'define-type' interface that makes any sense.
>
> This makes me wonder: If you can't specify the hooking up code in the
> SRFI, then how are implementors supposed to do any better? Either it can
> be done, or it can't. If it can't be done, well, that's another major
> issue.

The issue isn't whether its possible to connect a collection to some
dispatch system, but whether its possible to define an interface as a
frontend to any dispatch system.  Its the latter that may not be
possible.

	Scott