On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:42:56AM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
> >>> In the short term, yes, it may allow for drop in collections, but
> >>> should a real generic dispatch standard come about, it would not
> >>> only invalidate the mechanism you're describing, but the rest of
> >>> SRFI-44 as well since they would be specified in the same place.
>
> Bradd wrote:
> >> Why would it invalidate the whole thing? If a better solution becomes
> >> apparent in the future, then release a new SRFI that describes the
> >> delta from the old crusty implementation.
>
> > Why build in obsolecence?
>
> Why assume that it will become obsolete? If it does, a new SRFI can
> specify how to upgrade. In the meantime, collection library implementors
> have a portable extension mechanism that they can actually use.

Because it will.  Scheme systems right now have dispatch mechanisms.
Thats a fact.  It makes much more sense for this SRFI to integrate with
those.  But we can't do that without a portable, pervasive dispatch
system.  I suspect this will be standardized eventually, and when it
does, collections should integrate with it.  Specifying a dispatch
mechanism with this SRFI means that this SRFI has a limited lifetime
before it has to be patched or abandonned.

	Scott